Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Jean-Philippe Béland]

Exact replica should not be copyrighted in my opinion since they are not a
"creation of the mind". That being said, the changes made by the one doing
the replica can be copyrighted.

In this case of the museum, I think the person(s) doing the restoration did
a "creation of the mind" since they rebuild it without having an exact
model to copy.

JP

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017, 02:36 Yaroslav Blanter,  wrote:

> Actually, on Commons I had photographs deleted on the ground that the
> depicted building is a replica of an old building which went out of
> copyright, but the replica is copyrighted (despite my objection). When I
> myself nominated a photograph on the same grounds, it was kept. I do not
> particularly care which one is correct, but it would be great to have
> consistent practice.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Gordon Joly 
> wrote:
>
> > On 31/07/17 00:06, Jean-Philippe Béland wrote:
> > >  The restoration work is indeed an extensive work, but is it a
> "creation
> > of
> > > the mind", which is necessary for copyright?
> > >
> > > JP
> >
> >
> > The Cutty Sark was almost destroyed by fire, and was rebuilt. I would
> > say it a visitor attraction (of very high quality) that it is a
> > facsimile of the craft that sailed the oceans. I have visited both
> > before and after the fire (and rebuilding). Some timbers would also have
> > replaced before the fire and also planned replacement during the 2007
> > conservation closure period when the fire took place.
> >
> > Sir Arthur Evans also rebuilt an artifact, Knossos, and he used
> > concrete, which was not around in the era 1380–1100 BCE.
> >
> > Has something has been "created" by a mind? I would say yes, to both. In
> > the case of the Cutty Sark, the ship was placed in a new "dry dock" so
> > that visitors can view the hull (for example).
> >
> > Gordo
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Actually, on Commons I had photographs deleted on the ground that the
depicted building is a replica of an old building which went out of
copyright, but the replica is copyrighted (despite my objection). When I
myself nominated a photograph on the same grounds, it was kept. I do not
particularly care which one is correct, but it would be great to have
consistent practice.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Gordon Joly  wrote:

> On 31/07/17 00:06, Jean-Philippe Béland wrote:
> >  The restoration work is indeed an extensive work, but is it a "creation
> of
> > the mind", which is necessary for copyright?
> >
> > JP
>
>
> The Cutty Sark was almost destroyed by fire, and was rebuilt. I would
> say it a visitor attraction (of very high quality) that it is a
> facsimile of the craft that sailed the oceans. I have visited both
> before and after the fire (and rebuilding). Some timbers would also have
> replaced before the fire and also planned replacement during the 2007
> conservation closure period when the fire took place.
>
> Sir Arthur Evans also rebuilt an artifact, Knossos, and he used
> concrete, which was not around in the era 1380–1100 BCE.
>
> Has something has been "created" by a mind? I would say yes, to both. In
> the case of the Cutty Sark, the ship was placed in a new "dry dock" so
> that visitors can view the hull (for example).
>
> Gordo
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Gordon Joly]

On 31/07/17 00:06, Jean-Philippe Béland wrote:
>  The restoration work is indeed an extensive work, but is it a "creation of
> the mind", which is necessary for copyright?
> 
> JP


The Cutty Sark was almost destroyed by fire, and was rebuilt. I would
say it a visitor attraction (of very high quality) that it is a
facsimile of the craft that sailed the oceans. I have visited both
before and after the fire (and rebuilding). Some timbers would also have
replaced before the fire and also planned replacement during the 2007
conservation closure period when the fire took place.

Sir Arthur Evans also rebuilt an artifact, Knossos, and he used
concrete, which was not around in the era 1380–1100 BCE.

Has something has been "created" by a mind? I would say yes, to both. In
the case of the Cutty Sark, the ship was placed in a new "dry dock" so
that visitors can view the hull (for example).

Gordo



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Jean-Philippe Béland]

 The restoration work is indeed an extensive work, but is it a "creation of
the mind", which is necessary for copyright?

JP


On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 2:23 PM Gordon Joly  wrote:

> On 29/07/17 02:12, geni wrote:
> > Your mistake is in assuming the only work here is from the 2000 year
> > old sculptor and bronze worker.
>
>
> Cf. The Cutty Sark and Knosos?
>
> Gordo
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Gordon Joly]

On 29/07/17 02:12, geni wrote:
> Your mistake is in assuming the only work here is from the 2000 year
> old sculptor and bronze worker. 


Cf. The Cutty Sark and Knosos?

Gordo


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Fæ]

Hi Geni,

Thanks for your feedback on copyright. Rather than my personal failure
or mistake, I find the argument that either simple or faithful
restoration work on an ancient artefact will mean it creates new
copyright for the museum unlikely, based on the absence of any
evidence I have seen on many Commons deletion requests that a similar
case has ever gone to court, whether in England, Wales or elsewhere.
In fact I do not recall any museum in the UK ever claiming copyright
in this way on a restored physical ancient artefact. The two artefacts
are ancient artefacts, not recent models or excessively creatively
restored, as far as I could tell by looking closely at them. The
massive hole in the jug, which you can see very obviously in photo I
took, is a bit of a giveaway that restoration has not been excessive.
If you have any alternative evidence, it would be great to share it.

If you take this further, it would be best to open up community
discussion on Commons. It would help if you could can pin down the
relevant parts of the copyright act, or even better provide some
documented cases, rather than making hypothecated assertions. The best
place to do that is in the deletion requests on the two photographs
that were opened yesterday. The links are:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:British_Museum_2nd_century_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:British_Museum_Fortuna_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg

As for the British Museum reference numbers, this was not an oversight
on my part. No references were quoted anywhere in the exhibition, nor
the exhibition guide, nor did a detailed search on the British Museum
database provide any more information about these two artefacts. I
have no idea why. I do have photographs of the descriptive information
panels against the artefacts, but as these may be copyrighted they are
not suitable for Commons. If anyone wants those photographs to help
research the artefacts further, I would be happy to email them.

Thanks,
Fae

On 29 July 2017 at 02:12, geni  wrote:
> On 28 July 2017 at 21:36, Fæ  wrote:
>> Nobody believes that claiming copyright on 2,000 year old works
>
>
> And this is where your failure to understand English and Welsh law and
> the history of artifact handling become a problem.
>
> Your mistake is in assuming the only work here is from the 2000 year
> old sculptor and bronze worker. This is of course not the case. The
> reality is both items will have been subject to a certain degree of
> cleaning and "restoration" (you don't give British museum catalogue
> numbers so I can't look up exactly what). This is pretty common for
> any ah "headline" item that didn't go straight from the dig to a
> museum. Victorian collectors wanted complete statues for their
> collection and even today things can get a lot of work done to them
> (the Crosby Garrett Helmet for example).
>
> The Roman statue presumably entered the UK pre-1972 (if it didn't we
> have bigger concerns than copyright) which means there is a good
> chance it is from the imaginative restoration era. Has the restorer
> been dead for 70 years? I don't know and I don't think you do.
>
> The jug won't have come out of the ground looking like that. Has
> enough work been done to qualify for copyright or is it old enough for
> life+70 to have expired? I don't know. Do you?
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Fæ]

David,

Great to hear from you. A correction, as you seem to misunderstand who
I am. I am not conducting public relations. I am not paid for public
relations. I am simply an unpaid volunteer Wikimedian and I do not see
why I should apologize for that fact. The Wikimedia community is
supposed to be able to rely on this list to raise and discuss
organization issues, and I'm writing as a member of the community.

The term "copyfraud" is used standardly within the Wikimedia community
to describe false claims of copyright by institutions, there is no
special reason to avoid the word when it's a museum that is doing it.

I expect to be able to write about issues for the Wikimedia community
using language that we use in our community. I do not expect me, or
anyone else, to have their free speech here limited to language that
will fly well within WMF marketing or that will be diplomatic and
unchallenging for the British Library's public relations department.
If we see blatant copyfraud, the community should be free to call it
what it is.

Thanks,
Fae

On 28 July 2017 at 22:03, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 28 July 2017 at 21:59, Fæ  wrote:
>
>> Rogol, it's worth repeating that the only one here talking about
>> fraudulent conduct is yourself.
>
>
> If you write a post containing the word "fraud" over and over, people
> are going to assume you are accusing someone of fraud.
>
> Particularly when you use a word like "copyfraud" which was
> specifically coined to carry the emotional freight of the concept of
> fraud.
>
> If you don't realise this, you may not be the best person to be
> conducting public relations on this matter.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[geni]

On 28 July 2017 at 21:36, Fæ  wrote:
> Nobody believes that claiming copyright on 2,000 year old works


And this is where your failure to understand English and Welsh law and
the history of artifact handling become a problem.

Your mistake is in assuming the only work here is from the 2000 year
old sculptor and bronze worker. This is of course not the case. The
reality is both items will have been subject to a certain degree of
cleaning and "restoration" (you don't give British museum catalogue
numbers so I can't look up exactly what). This is pretty common for
any ah "headline" item that didn't go straight from the dig to a
museum. Victorian collectors wanted complete statues for their
collection and even today things can get a lot of work done to them
(the Crosby Garrett Helmet for example).

The Roman statue presumably entered the UK pre-1972 (if it didn't we
have bigger concerns than copyright) which means there is a good
chance it is from the imaginative restoration era. Has the restorer
been dead for 70 years? I don't know and I don't think you do.

The jug won't have come out of the ground looking like that. Has
enough work been done to qualify for copyright or is it old enough for
life+70 to have expired? I don't know. Do you?


-- 
geni

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[David Gerard]

On 28 July 2017 at 21:59, Fæ  wrote:

> Rogol, it's worth repeating that the only one here talking about
> fraudulent conduct is yourself.


If you write a post containing the word "fraud" over and over, people
are going to assume you are accusing someone of fraud.

Particularly when you use a word like "copyfraud" which was
specifically coined to carry the emotional freight of the concept of
fraud.

If you don't realise this, you may not be the best person to be
conducting public relations on this matter.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Fae

Since I pointed out that your posting
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump=253364582=253360811
linked to in your first posting on the subject used that word, your latest
email is clearly incorrect, and I think that terminates the discussion as
far as I'm concerned.

"Rogol"

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> Rogol, it's worth repeating that the only one here talking about
> fraudulent conduct is yourself.
>
> I'll pass on repeating it again. What I originally posted is obviously
> not getting read.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On 28 July 2017 at 21:49, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:
> > Fae,
> >
> > That single sentence does not express "the issue" as I am sure you are
> well
> > aware.  I imagine it does not entirely capture your views on this complex
> > subject either.  So it is not really very helpful.
> >
> > Chris Keating's email depicts the likely course of events better than
> your
> > over-excited claims of "fraudulent" conduct and it would be wise to
> > actually find out what the BM's stance is before criticising it, or
> calling
> > for social media campaigns to change it.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Fæ  wrote:
> >
> >> On 28 July 2017 at 21:29, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
> >> > Fae
> >> >
> >> > When you use the headline "Copyfraud by the British Museum" (to
> describe
> >> > the actions of some other organisation) and link to a discussion ([5]
> on
> >> > your list) where you used the phrase "fraudulent copyright claim"
> >> > twice,there is no other reasonable interpretation of your words than
> to
> >> > understand that you are accusing the BM of fraudulent conduct.  That
> is
> >> not
> >> > a sensible basis for a serious discussion and I for one would not
> waste
> >> my
> >> > rime getting involved with it: indeed I do not support your
> accusation in
> >> > the slightest.
> >> >
> >> > You state that as a charity the BM "must avoid copyfraud in any
> >> > circumstances".
> >> > Since you are using that word to cover, broadly speaking, any action
> to
> >> > claim or protect intellectual property rights that you don't like,
> they
> >> > clearly do not have any duty to behave exactly as you personally might
> >> > happen to prefer.  The question of harmonising intellectual property
> >> rights
> >> > across various jurisdictions, the interaction between ownership of
> >> physical
> >> > objects and their artisitic and photographic representations, the
> legal
> >> > duties of charity trustees to achieve their charitable aims and their
> >> duty
> >> > to maintain their ability to execute those aims, and all the other
> >> elements
> >> > of this discussion deserve more than a causally dismissive "I'm not
> going
> >> > to write an essay".  If you can't be bothered to explain your
> position, I
> >> > can't be bothered to support it.
> >> >
> >> > If you really think your attitude of "I'm right, everyone else is
> wrong,
> >> > and I'm not going to bother to be polite to people who don't do what I
> >> want
> >> > the instant I demand it" is going to achieve anything practical, then
> I
> >> am
> >> > not going to waste my time helping you to waste the time of people who
> >> have
> >> > a job to do, which is rather more demanding, rather more worthwhile
> and
> >> > rather less well paid than you choose to believe.
> >>
> >> Nobody believes that claiming copyright on 2,000 year old works is
> >> something that a British National Institution would want to defend.
> >> The issue is expressed in that one sentence, an essay is really not
> >> needed to explain it. So "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" does not
> >> describe what this is about.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Fae
> >>
> >> > "Rogol"
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Fæ  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Rogol, thanks for your interest. I do not understand your reading
> >> >> of my words. However when I wrote "the restrictions are
> >> >> shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud" or "apparent ignorance over
> >> >> copyright", neither can be interpreted as an accusation of fraudulent
> >> >> conduct by anyone. If there is confusion about the word, I suggest
> >> >> reading the Wikipedia article, it's quite interesting.[1]
> >> >>
> >> >> As for a reasoned case, I found the board level approved words on the
> >> >> official website, describing why the British Museum exists (see my
> >> >> original email), to be adequate enough to expect that their policies
> >> >> and their implementation of policy must avoid copyfraud in any
> >> >> circumstances. I'm not going to write an essay about something this
> >> >> obvious, nor do I expect to have to doublethink myself into giving
> >> >> positive reasons for a notice on an ancient artefact that claims it
> is
> >> >> under copyright, just to potentially make a few middle-managers in
> the
> >> >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Fae,

That single sentence does not express "the issue" as I am sure you are well
aware.  I imagine it does not entirely capture your views on this complex
subject either.  So it is not really very helpful.

Chris Keating's email depicts the likely course of events better than your
over-excited claims of "fraudulent" conduct and it would be wise to
actually find out what the BM's stance is before criticising it, or calling
for social media campaigns to change it.

"Rogol"

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> On 28 July 2017 at 21:29, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:
> > Fae
> >
> > When you use the headline "Copyfraud by the British Museum" (to describe
> > the actions of some other organisation) and link to a discussion ([5] on
> > your list) where you used the phrase "fraudulent copyright claim"
> > twice,there is no other reasonable interpretation of your words than to
> > understand that you are accusing the BM of fraudulent conduct.  That is
> not
> > a sensible basis for a serious discussion and I for one would not waste
> my
> > rime getting involved with it: indeed I do not support your accusation in
> > the slightest.
> >
> > You state that as a charity the BM "must avoid copyfraud in any
> > circumstances".
> > Since you are using that word to cover, broadly speaking, any action to
> > claim or protect intellectual property rights that you don't like, they
> > clearly do not have any duty to behave exactly as you personally might
> > happen to prefer.  The question of harmonising intellectual property
> rights
> > across various jurisdictions, the interaction between ownership of
> physical
> > objects and their artisitic and photographic representations, the legal
> > duties of charity trustees to achieve their charitable aims and their
> duty
> > to maintain their ability to execute those aims, and all the other
> elements
> > of this discussion deserve more than a causally dismissive "I'm not going
> > to write an essay".  If you can't be bothered to explain your position, I
> > can't be bothered to support it.
> >
> > If you really think your attitude of "I'm right, everyone else is wrong,
> > and I'm not going to bother to be polite to people who don't do what I
> want
> > the instant I demand it" is going to achieve anything practical, then I
> am
> > not going to waste my time helping you to waste the time of people who
> have
> > a job to do, which is rather more demanding, rather more worthwhile and
> > rather less well paid than you choose to believe.
>
> Nobody believes that claiming copyright on 2,000 year old works is
> something that a British National Institution would want to defend.
> The issue is expressed in that one sentence, an essay is really not
> needed to explain it. So "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" does not
> describe what this is about.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> > "Rogol"
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Fæ  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Rogol, thanks for your interest. I do not understand your reading
> >> of my words. However when I wrote "the restrictions are
> >> shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud" or "apparent ignorance over
> >> copyright", neither can be interpreted as an accusation of fraudulent
> >> conduct by anyone. If there is confusion about the word, I suggest
> >> reading the Wikipedia article, it's quite interesting.[1]
> >>
> >> As for a reasoned case, I found the board level approved words on the
> >> official website, describing why the British Museum exists (see my
> >> original email), to be adequate enough to expect that their policies
> >> and their implementation of policy must avoid copyfraud in any
> >> circumstances. I'm not going to write an essay about something this
> >> obvious, nor do I expect to have to doublethink myself into giving
> >> positive reasons for a notice on an ancient artefact that claims it is
> >> under copyright, just to potentially make a few middle-managers in the
> >> administration of the two museums involved feel good about themselves.
> >> They are probably paid well enough not to worry about my plain words,
> >> or my simple-minded approach, failing to be politically diplomatic.
> >>
> >> As previously stated, I'd be only too happy for the BM or the THM to
> >> get in touch. I'm even happy to have a chat over the phone as part of
> >> taking steps to ensure that this exhibition is fixed, and cannot
> >> reoccur in the display of future loans.
> >>
> >> Links
> >> 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Fae
> >> --
> >> Fae
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+
> >> http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
> >>
> >> On 28 Jul 2017 19:09, "Rogol Domedonfors" 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Fae,
> >> >
> >> > I do know some people at the BM but I'm not going to waste their or my
> >> time
> >> > on claims that start off by accusing them of "fraudlent" conduct and
> >> finish
> >> > with demands that they 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Fæ]

On 28 July 2017 at 21:29, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:
> Fae
>
> When you use the headline "Copyfraud by the British Museum" (to describe
> the actions of some other organisation) and link to a discussion ([5] on
> your list) where you used the phrase "fraudulent copyright claim"
> twice,there is no other reasonable interpretation of your words than to
> understand that you are accusing the BM of fraudulent conduct.  That is not
> a sensible basis for a serious discussion and I for one would not waste my
> rime getting involved with it: indeed I do not support your accusation in
> the slightest.
>
> You state that as a charity the BM "must avoid copyfraud in any
> circumstances".
> Since you are using that word to cover, broadly speaking, any action to
> claim or protect intellectual property rights that you don't like, they
> clearly do not have any duty to behave exactly as you personally might
> happen to prefer.  The question of harmonising intellectual property rights
> across various jurisdictions, the interaction between ownership of physical
> objects and their artisitic and photographic representations, the legal
> duties of charity trustees to achieve their charitable aims and their duty
> to maintain their ability to execute those aims, and all the other elements
> of this discussion deserve more than a causally dismissive "I'm not going
> to write an essay".  If you can't be bothered to explain your position, I
> can't be bothered to support it.
>
> If you really think your attitude of "I'm right, everyone else is wrong,
> and I'm not going to bother to be polite to people who don't do what I want
> the instant I demand it" is going to achieve anything practical, then I am
> not going to waste my time helping you to waste the time of people who have
> a job to do, which is rather more demanding, rather more worthwhile and
> rather less well paid than you choose to believe.

Nobody believes that claiming copyright on 2,000 year old works is
something that a British National Institution would want to defend.
The issue is expressed in that one sentence, an essay is really not
needed to explain it. So "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" does not
describe what this is about.

Thanks,
Fae

> "Rogol"
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>
>> Hi Rogol, thanks for your interest. I do not understand your reading
>> of my words. However when I wrote "the restrictions are
>> shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud" or "apparent ignorance over
>> copyright", neither can be interpreted as an accusation of fraudulent
>> conduct by anyone. If there is confusion about the word, I suggest
>> reading the Wikipedia article, it's quite interesting.[1]
>>
>> As for a reasoned case, I found the board level approved words on the
>> official website, describing why the British Museum exists (see my
>> original email), to be adequate enough to expect that their policies
>> and their implementation of policy must avoid copyfraud in any
>> circumstances. I'm not going to write an essay about something this
>> obvious, nor do I expect to have to doublethink myself into giving
>> positive reasons for a notice on an ancient artefact that claims it is
>> under copyright, just to potentially make a few middle-managers in the
>> administration of the two museums involved feel good about themselves.
>> They are probably paid well enough not to worry about my plain words,
>> or my simple-minded approach, failing to be politically diplomatic.
>>
>> As previously stated, I'd be only too happy for the BM or the THM to
>> get in touch. I'm even happy to have a chat over the phone as part of
>> taking steps to ensure that this exhibition is fixed, and cannot
>> reoccur in the display of future loans.
>>
>> Links
>> 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Fae
>> --
>> Fae
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+
>> http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
>>
>> On 28 Jul 2017 19:09, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:
>> >
>> > Fae,
>> >
>> > I do know some people at the BM but I'm not going to waste their or my
>> time
>> > on claims that start off by accusing them of "fraudlent" conduct and
>> finish
>> > with demands that they immediately reverse their policies, just because
>> you
>> > say so.  If you were able to put together a reasoned case which showed
>> that
>> > you were aware of the positive and negative sides of their and your
>> > positions, I might reconsider -- but to be honest, I'm not going to.
>> >
>> > "Rogol"
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>> >
>> > > The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan
>> > > from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those
>> > > objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs
>> > > of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are
>> > > shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Fae

When you use the headline "Copyfraud by the British Museum" (to describe
the actions of some other organisation) and link to a discussion ([5] on
your list) where you used the phrase "fraudulent copyright claim"
twice,there is no other reasonable interpretation of your words than to
understand that you are accusing the BM of fraudulent conduct.  That is not
a sensible basis for a serious discussion and I for one would not waste my
rime getting involved with it: indeed I do not support your accusation in
the slightest.

You state that as a charity the BM "must avoid copyfraud in any
circumstances".
Since you are using that word to cover, broadly speaking, any action to
claim or protect intellectual property rights that you don't like, they
clearly do not have any duty to behave exactly as you personally might
happen to prefer.  The question of harmonising intellectual property rights
across various jurisdictions, the interaction between ownership of physical
objects and their artisitic and photographic representations, the legal
duties of charity trustees to achieve their charitable aims and their duty
to maintain their ability to execute those aims, and all the other elements
of this discussion deserve more than a causally dismissive "I'm not going
to write an essay".  If you can't be bothered to explain your position, I
can't be bothered to support it.

If you really think your attitude of "I'm right, everyone else is wrong,
and I'm not going to bother to be polite to people who don't do what I want
the instant I demand it" is going to achieve anything practical, then I am
not going to waste my time helping you to waste the time of people who have
a job to do, which is rather more demanding, rather more worthwhile and
rather less well paid than you choose to believe.

"Rogol"



On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> Hi Rogol, thanks for your interest. I do not understand your reading
> of my words. However when I wrote "the restrictions are
> shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud" or "apparent ignorance over
> copyright", neither can be interpreted as an accusation of fraudulent
> conduct by anyone. If there is confusion about the word, I suggest
> reading the Wikipedia article, it's quite interesting.[1]
>
> As for a reasoned case, I found the board level approved words on the
> official website, describing why the British Museum exists (see my
> original email), to be adequate enough to expect that their policies
> and their implementation of policy must avoid copyfraud in any
> circumstances. I'm not going to write an essay about something this
> obvious, nor do I expect to have to doublethink myself into giving
> positive reasons for a notice on an ancient artefact that claims it is
> under copyright, just to potentially make a few middle-managers in the
> administration of the two museums involved feel good about themselves.
> They are probably paid well enough not to worry about my plain words,
> or my simple-minded approach, failing to be politically diplomatic.
>
> As previously stated, I'd be only too happy for the BM or the THM to
> get in touch. I'm even happy to have a chat over the phone as part of
> taking steps to ensure that this exhibition is fixed, and cannot
> reoccur in the display of future loans.
>
> Links
> 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> Fae
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+
> http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
>
> On 28 Jul 2017 19:09, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:
> >
> > Fae,
> >
> > I do know some people at the BM but I'm not going to waste their or my
> time
> > on claims that start off by accusing them of "fraudlent" conduct and
> finish
> > with demands that they immediately reverse their policies, just because
> you
> > say so.  If you were able to put together a reasoned case which showed
> that
> > you were aware of the positive and negative sides of their and your
> > positions, I might reconsider -- but to be honest, I'm not going to.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan
> > > from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those
> > > objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs
> > > of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are
> > > shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that
> > > might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible
> > > as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims
> > > over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a
> > > money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and
> > > charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put
> > > to public use and be freely accessible".
> > >
> > > Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that
> > > might 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Fæ]

Hi Rogol, thanks for your interest. I do not understand your reading
of my words. However when I wrote "the restrictions are
shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud" or "apparent ignorance over
copyright", neither can be interpreted as an accusation of fraudulent
conduct by anyone. If there is confusion about the word, I suggest
reading the Wikipedia article, it's quite interesting.[1]

As for a reasoned case, I found the board level approved words on the
official website, describing why the British Museum exists (see my
original email), to be adequate enough to expect that their policies
and their implementation of policy must avoid copyfraud in any
circumstances. I'm not going to write an essay about something this
obvious, nor do I expect to have to doublethink myself into giving
positive reasons for a notice on an ancient artefact that claims it is
under copyright, just to potentially make a few middle-managers in the
administration of the two museums involved feel good about themselves.
They are probably paid well enough not to worry about my plain words,
or my simple-minded approach, failing to be politically diplomatic.

As previously stated, I'd be only too happy for the BM or the THM to
get in touch. I'm even happy to have a chat over the phone as part of
taking steps to ensure that this exhibition is fixed, and cannot
reoccur in the display of future loans.

Links
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud

Thanks,
Fae
--
Fae
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+
http://telegram.me/wmlgbt

On 28 Jul 2017 19:09, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:
>
> Fae,
>
> I do know some people at the BM but I'm not going to waste their or my time
> on claims that start off by accusing them of "fraudlent" conduct and finish
> with demands that they immediately reverse their policies, just because you
> say so.  If you were able to put together a reasoned case which showed that
> you were aware of the positive and negative sides of their and your
> positions, I might reconsider -- but to be honest, I'm not going to.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan
> > from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those
> > objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs
> > of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are
> > shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that
> > might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible
> > as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims
> > over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a
> > money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and
> > charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put
> > to public use and be freely accessible".
> >
> > Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that
> > might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm
> > wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social
> > media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The
> > reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM
> > loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct,
> > so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite private
> > letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save
> > hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the
> > sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a
> > few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
> >
> > Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away
> > from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards
> > sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to
> > try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a
> > few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies, might
> > mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are
> > still alive to see it happen.
> >
> > Links
> > 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_2nd_
> > century_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
> > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_
> > Fortuna_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
> > 3. Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition:
> > http://web.archive.org/web/20161030151228/www.tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries-
> > collections/galleries/roman-frontier-gallery
> > 4. British Museum "about us":
> > http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/
> > management/about_us.aspx
> > 5. Commons village pump discussion:
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#
> > British_Museum_and_blatant_copyfraud
> >
> > Contacts
> > * https://twitter.com/britishmuseum
> > * https://twitter.com/TullieHouse
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
> > --
> > 

[Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Fæ]

The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan
from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those
objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs
of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are
shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that
might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible
as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims
over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a
money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and
charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put
to public use and be freely accessible".

Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that
might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm
wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social
media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The
reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM
loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct,
so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite private
letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save
hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the
sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a
few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.

Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away
from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards
sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to
try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a
few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies, might
mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are
still alive to see it happen.

Links
1. 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_2nd_century_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
2. 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_Fortuna_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
3. Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition:
http://web.archive.org/web/20161030151228/www.tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries-collections/galleries/roman-frontier-gallery
4. British Museum "about us":
http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/management/about_us.aspx
5. Commons village pump discussion:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#British_Museum_and_blatant_copyfraud

Contacts
* https://twitter.com/britishmuseum
* https://twitter.com/TullieHouse

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,