It is my understanding that many museums automatically put a restriction on
copying of material on loan, since they have not themselves investigated
the copyright status. I have known libraries to do that for any book
received by inter-library loan, on the same basis. Such restrictions can of
cours
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 rebu
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 ca
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 quali
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 sculp
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/wik
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 man
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
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
ol
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
Fae
Since I pointed out that your posting
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=253364582&oldid=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 kind of am inclined to agree with Rogol. Let's try pointing it out nicely
first. There's a decent chance they'll say "Oops! Someone got carried away
with the stickers", and it's fixed just that easy.
If they actually do try to claim copyright, then there's something tangible
to criticize. But th
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 expre
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 cla
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 o
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
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 confus
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 s
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 copyfra
19 matches
Mail list logo
