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
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
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?
The Cutty Sark was almost destroyed by fire, and was rebuilt. I would
say it a visitor attraction (of very high
The restoration work is indeed an extensive work, but is it a "creation of
the mind", which is necessary for copyright?
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
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?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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
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
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
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.
Since I pointed out that your posting
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
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
On 28 July 2017 at 21:29, Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
> When you use the headline "Copyfraud by the British Museum" (to describe
> the actions of some other organisation) and link to a discussion ( on
> your list) where you used the phrase "fraudulent copyright
When you use the headline "Copyfraud by the British Museum" (to describe
the actions of some other organisation) and link to a discussion ( on
your list) where you used the phrase "fraudulent copyright claim"
twice,there is no other reasonable interpretation of your words than to
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
The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan
from the British Museum, 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
Mail list logo