Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

2017-08-21 Thread Gerard Meijssen 
Hoi,
This exchange of views is limited to the views being in a narrow way
connected to what is originally posted. When a diametrically opposed view
is expressed it is easily confused with subject high jacking. Arguably this
thread has gone of the rails already and in direct reply no to your point,
it is not a free exchange of views.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 20 August 2017 at 08:35, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:

> Peter
>
> ... and people who disagree post comments to that effect in a free, fair
> and frank exchange of views.  So all is well.
>
> Reynard
>
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > Funny thing,
> > That is what I would have said of Fae as well
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Rogol Domedonfors
> > Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 11:07 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on
> > public domain works
> >
> > Peter,
> > Thanks for the compliment.  I just call them as I see them.
> > Richard
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Rogol,
> > > Not everyone is blessed with your easy-going tolerance and automatic
> > > assumption of good faith.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Rogol Domedonfors
> > > Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 10:16 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on
> > > public domain works
> > >
> > > Fae,
> > >
> > > You seem rather too quick to leap to the conclusion that anyone who
> > > disagrees with you on intellectual property has an imperfect
> > > understanding or is consciously committing "copyfraud".  Have you made
> > > any attempts whatsoever to engage with the organisation in question to
> > > find what their position is and consider whether it might have some
> > > merits?  Have you considered that if you were to approach them in a
> > > less aggressive fashion, they might be happy to work with you or others
> > to release their collection?
> > >
> > > Alternatively, if you are absolutely confident that your understanding
> > > of the law is correct and theirs is not, then you are at no risk of
> > > being successfully prosecuted, so what is your problem?
> > >
> > > "Rogol"
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > The Canmore database, https://canmore.org.uk, describes itself as
> > > > the "online catalogue of the National Record of the Historic
> > Environment.
> > > > It holds detailed information and archive images for more than
> > > > 300,000 places in Scotland." Canmore is part of Historic Environment
> > > > Scotland (HES).
> > > >
> > > > I'm aware that Wikimedia UK has helped to fund several projects in
> > > > Scotland, so there is a network of contacts that could help take a
> > > > look at the problematic claims of copyright. Perhaps someone can
> > > > offer to take action to help Historic Environment Scotland reach a
> > > > better understanding of copyright and avoid basic copyfraud errors?
> > > >
> > > > In theory this could be a marvelous reference resource for open
> > > > knowledge about the history of Scotland, but the online catalogue
> > > > seems more like a retail outlet geared to maximise the cash to be
> > > > made from selling archive images, many of which are obviously public
> > > > domain. There are two basic problems:
> > > > * The online archive is limited to 800px width images, with website
> > > > users directed to buy higher resolutions which are claimed to be a
> > > > minimum of 3,000 pixels wide.
> > > > * Regardless of age, source or photographer all images are claimed
> > > > as copyright with the conditions including "No permission is given
> > > > for any commercial use, distribution or reproduction in these terms.
> > > > Please use the BUY option for these purposes and separate licences
> > > > will be provided."
> > > >
> > > > I would be delighted to release some of the public domain
> > > > collections from Canmore at high resolution to Wikimedia Commons,
> > > > but at the moment it's all locked down. In fact were I to try to
> > > > release the disappointingly small 800px versions of public domain
> > > > images, even using the "required" attribution to RCAHMS (which no
> > > > longer exists), I would be at personal risk of prosecution by HES
> > > > based on the site terms and conditions. See examples 1 and 2.
> > > >
> > > > Examples:
> > > > 1. Photograph of Hanover Street taken in 1870 by an unknown
> > > > photographer, making it likely to have been public domain from 1898.
> > > > https://canmore.org.uk/collection/466213
> > > > 2. Over 950 photographs

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

2017-08-20 Thread Fæ 
Yes! I intended to post to the UK list, and thought I had until reading
this. Oops.

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

On 20 Aug 2017 15:59, "Lodewijk"  wrote:

Maybe a silly question, but is there no more specialized forum that would
be more suitable to have this conversation? I'm not sure if we need the
wide movement list to discuss the copyright policy of a particular UK
database. Or is there a specific expertise you're searching for? If so, I
somehow missed the question for that in the exchange.

Best,
Lodewijk

ps: sorry Andy if it annoys you. I do think there's a diverse set of
opinions on top-posting or not, these days. Especially as email clients
have changed to suit the needs of those that do. I fear it's a battle lost.

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> Andy (or Fae), if you've corresponded with them, could you please post
that
> correspondence here?
>
> Todd
> ___
> 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] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

2017-08-20 Thread Lodewijk 
Maybe a silly question, but is there no more specialized forum that would
be more suitable to have this conversation? I'm not sure if we need the
wide movement list to discuss the copyright policy of a particular UK
database. Or is there a specific expertise you're searching for? If so, I
somehow missed the question for that in the exchange.

Best,
Lodewijk

ps: sorry Andy if it annoys you. I do think there's a diverse set of
opinions on top-posting or not, these days. Especially as email clients
have changed to suit the needs of those that do. I fear it's a battle lost.

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> Andy (or Fae), if you've corresponded with them, could you please post that
> correspondence here?
>
> Todd
> ___
> 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] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

2017-08-19 Thread Peter Southwood 
Funny thing, 
That is what I would have said of Fae as well
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Rogol Domedonfors
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 11:07 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public 
domain works

Peter,
Thanks for the compliment.  I just call them as I see them.
Richard

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Peter Southwood < 
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Rogol,
> Not everyone is blessed with your easy-going tolerance and automatic 
> assumption of good faith.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of Rogol Domedonfors
> Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 10:16 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on 
> public domain works
>
> Fae,
>
> You seem rather too quick to leap to the conclusion that anyone who 
> disagrees with you on intellectual property has an imperfect 
> understanding or is consciously committing "copyfraud".  Have you made 
> any attempts whatsoever to engage with the organisation in question to 
> find what their position is and consider whether it might have some 
> merits?  Have you considered that if you were to approach them in a 
> less aggressive fashion, they might be happy to work with you or others to 
> release their collection?
>
> Alternatively, if you are absolutely confident that your understanding 
> of the law is correct and theirs is not, then you are at no risk of 
> being successfully prosecuted, so what is your problem?
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > The Canmore database, https://canmore.org.uk, describes itself as 
> > the "online catalogue of the National Record of the Historic Environment.
> > It holds detailed information and archive images for more than 
> > 300,000 places in Scotland." Canmore is part of Historic Environment 
> > Scotland (HES).
> >
> > I'm aware that Wikimedia UK has helped to fund several projects in 
> > Scotland, so there is a network of contacts that could help take a 
> > look at the problematic claims of copyright. Perhaps someone can 
> > offer to take action to help Historic Environment Scotland reach a 
> > better understanding of copyright and avoid basic copyfraud errors?
> >
> > In theory this could be a marvelous reference resource for open 
> > knowledge about the history of Scotland, but the online catalogue 
> > seems more like a retail outlet geared to maximise the cash to be 
> > made from selling archive images, many of which are obviously public 
> > domain. There are two basic problems:
> > * The online archive is limited to 800px width images, with website 
> > users directed to buy higher resolutions which are claimed to be a 
> > minimum of 3,000 pixels wide.
> > * Regardless of age, source or photographer all images are claimed 
> > as copyright with the conditions including "No permission is given 
> > for any commercial use, distribution or reproduction in these terms.
> > Please use the BUY option for these purposes and separate licences 
> > will be provided."
> >
> > I would be delighted to release some of the public domain 
> > collections from Canmore at high resolution to Wikimedia Commons, 
> > but at the moment it's all locked down. In fact were I to try to 
> > release the disappointingly small 800px versions of public domain 
> > images, even using the "required" attribution to RCAHMS (which no 
> > longer exists), I would be at personal risk of prosecution by HES 
> > based on the site terms and conditions. See examples 1 and 2.
> >
> > Examples:
> > 1. Photograph of Hanover Street taken in 1870 by an unknown 
> > photographer, making it likely to have been public domain from 1898.
> > https://canmore.org.uk/collection/466213
> > 2. Over 950 photographs taken by Francis M Christal, who died in 
> > 1944, making all photographs public domain in 2014:
> > https://canmore.org.uk/collection/result?GROUPCATEGORY=5_
> > KEYWORD=Francis%20M%20Chrystal_items_page=40
> >
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

2017-08-19 Thread Todd Allen 
Andy (or Fae), if you've corresponded with them, could you please post that
correspondence here?

Todd
___
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] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

2017-08-19 Thread Andy Mabbett 
On 19 August 2017 at 21:16, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:

A: Because it messes up the order in which we read text
Q: Why is top posting such a bad thing?
A: Top posters
Q: What's the most annoying thing on mailing lists?

> Fae,
>
> You seem rather too quick to leap to the conclusion that anyone who
> disagrees with you on intellectual property has an imperfect understanding
> or is consciously committing "copyfraud".  Have you made any attempts
> whatsoever to engage with the organisation in question to find what their
> position is and consider whether it might have some merits?

I have, and I found both "an imperfect understanding" and "consciously
committing copyfraud" to apply.

> Alternatively, if you are absolutely confident that your understanding of
> the law is correct and theirs is not, then you are at no risk of being
> successfully prosecuted, so what is your problem?

Even an unsuccessful prosecution can be very costly, in terms of both
money and time, to the defendant.

___
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] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

2017-08-19 Thread Rogol Domedonfors 
Peter,
Thanks for the compliment.  I just call them as I see them.
Richard

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Rogol,
> Not everyone is blessed with your easy-going tolerance and automatic
> assumption of good faith.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Rogol Domedonfors
> Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 10:16 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on
> public domain works
>
> Fae,
>
> You seem rather too quick to leap to the conclusion that anyone who
> disagrees with you on intellectual property has an imperfect understanding
> or is consciously committing "copyfraud".  Have you made any attempts
> whatsoever to engage with the organisation in question to find what their
> position is and consider whether it might have some merits?  Have you
> considered that if you were to approach them in a less aggressive fashion,
> they might be happy to work with you or others to release their collection?
>
> Alternatively, if you are absolutely confident that your understanding of
> the law is correct and theirs is not, then you are at no risk of being
> successfully prosecuted, so what is your problem?
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > The Canmore database, https://canmore.org.uk, describes itself as the
> > "online catalogue of the National Record of the Historic Environment.
> > It holds detailed information and archive images for more than 300,000
> > places in Scotland." Canmore is part of Historic Environment Scotland
> > (HES).
> >
> > I'm aware that Wikimedia UK has helped to fund several projects in
> > Scotland, so there is a network of contacts that could help take a
> > look at the problematic claims of copyright. Perhaps someone can offer
> > to take action to help Historic Environment Scotland reach a better
> > understanding of copyright and avoid basic copyfraud errors?
> >
> > In theory this could be a marvelous reference resource for open
> > knowledge about the history of Scotland, but the online catalogue
> > seems more like a retail outlet geared to maximise the cash to be made
> > from selling archive images, many of which are obviously public
> > domain. There are two basic problems:
> > * The online archive is limited to 800px width images, with website
> > users directed to buy higher resolutions which are claimed to be a
> > minimum of 3,000 pixels wide.
> > * Regardless of age, source or photographer all images are claimed as
> > copyright with the conditions including "No permission is given for
> > any commercial use, distribution or reproduction in these terms.
> > Please use the BUY option for these purposes and separate licences
> > will be provided."
> >
> > I would be delighted to release some of the public domain collections
> > from Canmore at high resolution to Wikimedia Commons, but at the
> > moment it's all locked down. In fact were I to try to release the
> > disappointingly small 800px versions of public domain images, even
> > using the "required" attribution to RCAHMS (which no longer exists), I
> > would be at personal risk of prosecution by HES based on the site
> > terms and conditions. See examples 1 and 2.
> >
> > Examples:
> > 1. Photograph of Hanover Street taken in 1870 by an unknown
> > photographer, making it likely to have been public domain from 1898.
> > https://canmore.org.uk/collection/466213
> > 2. Over 950 photographs taken by Francis M Christal, who died in 1944,
> > making all photographs public domain in 2014:
> > https://canmore.org.uk/collection/result?GROUPCATEGORY=5_
> > KEYWORD=Francis%20M%20Chrystal_items_page=40
> >
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

2017-08-19 Thread Peter Southwood 
Rogol,
Not everyone is blessed with your easy-going tolerance and automatic assumption 
of good faith.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Rogol Domedonfors
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 10:16 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public 
domain works

Fae,

You seem rather too quick to leap to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees 
with you on intellectual property has an imperfect understanding or is 
consciously committing "copyfraud".  Have you made any attempts whatsoever to 
engage with the organisation in question to find what their position is and 
consider whether it might have some merits?  Have you considered that if you 
were to approach them in a less aggressive fashion, they might be happy to work 
with you or others to release their collection?

Alternatively, if you are absolutely confident that your understanding of the 
law is correct and theirs is not, then you are at no risk of being successfully 
prosecuted, so what is your problem?

"Rogol"

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> The Canmore database, https://canmore.org.uk, describes itself as the 
> "online catalogue of the National Record of the Historic Environment.
> It holds detailed information and archive images for more than 300,000 
> places in Scotland." Canmore is part of Historic Environment Scotland 
> (HES).
>
> I'm aware that Wikimedia UK has helped to fund several projects in 
> Scotland, so there is a network of contacts that could help take a 
> look at the problematic claims of copyright. Perhaps someone can offer 
> to take action to help Historic Environment Scotland reach a better 
> understanding of copyright and avoid basic copyfraud errors?
>
> In theory this could be a marvelous reference resource for open 
> knowledge about the history of Scotland, but the online catalogue 
> seems more like a retail outlet geared to maximise the cash to be made 
> from selling archive images, many of which are obviously public 
> domain. There are two basic problems:
> * The online archive is limited to 800px width images, with website 
> users directed to buy higher resolutions which are claimed to be a 
> minimum of 3,000 pixels wide.
> * Regardless of age, source or photographer all images are claimed as 
> copyright with the conditions including "No permission is given for 
> any commercial use, distribution or reproduction in these terms.
> Please use the BUY option for these purposes and separate licences 
> will be provided."
>
> I would be delighted to release some of the public domain collections 
> from Canmore at high resolution to Wikimedia Commons, but at the 
> moment it's all locked down. In fact were I to try to release the 
> disappointingly small 800px versions of public domain images, even 
> using the "required" attribution to RCAHMS (which no longer exists), I 
> would be at personal risk of prosecution by HES based on the site 
> terms and conditions. See examples 1 and 2.
>
> Examples:
> 1. Photograph of Hanover Street taken in 1870 by an unknown 
> photographer, making it likely to have been public domain from 1898.
> https://canmore.org.uk/collection/466213
> 2. Over 950 photographs taken by Francis M Christal, who died in 1944, 
> making all photographs public domain in 2014:
> https://canmore.org.uk/collection/result?GROUPCATEGORY=5_
> KEYWORD=Francis%20M%20Chrystal_items_page=40
>
> 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,
> 
___
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] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

2017-08-19 Thread Rogol Domedonfors 
Fae,

You seem rather too quick to leap to the conclusion that anyone who
disagrees with you on intellectual property has an imperfect understanding
or is consciously committing "copyfraud".  Have you made any attempts
whatsoever to engage with the organisation in question to find what their
position is and consider whether it might have some merits?  Have you
considered that if you were to approach them in a less aggressive fashion,
they might be happy to work with you or others to release their collection?

Alternatively, if you are absolutely confident that your understanding of
the law is correct and theirs is not, then you are at no risk of being
successfully prosecuted, so what is your problem?

"Rogol"

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> The Canmore database, https://canmore.org.uk, describes itself as the
> "online catalogue of the National Record of the Historic Environment.
> It holds detailed information and archive images for more than 300,000
> places in Scotland." Canmore is part of Historic Environment Scotland
> (HES).
>
> I'm aware that Wikimedia UK has helped to fund several projects in
> Scotland, so there is a network of contacts that could help take a
> look at the problematic claims of copyright. Perhaps someone can offer
> to take action to help Historic Environment Scotland reach a better
> understanding of copyright and avoid basic copyfraud errors?
>
> In theory this could be a marvelous reference resource for open
> knowledge about the history of Scotland, but the online catalogue
> seems more like a retail outlet geared to maximise the cash to be made
> from selling archive images, many of which are obviously public
> domain. There are two basic problems:
> * The online archive is limited to 800px width images, with website
> users directed to buy higher resolutions which are claimed to be a
> minimum of 3,000 pixels wide.
> * Regardless of age, source or photographer all images are claimed as
> copyright with the conditions including "No permission is given for
> any commercial use, distribution or reproduction in these terms.
> Please use the BUY option for these purposes and separate licences
> will be provided."
>
> I would be delighted to release some of the public domain collections
> from Canmore at high resolution to Wikimedia Commons, but at the
> moment it's all locked down. In fact were I to try to release the
> disappointingly small 800px versions of public domain images, even
> using the "required" attribution to RCAHMS (which no longer exists), I
> would be at personal risk of prosecution by HES based on the site
> terms and conditions. See examples 1 and 2.
>
> Examples:
> 1. Photograph of Hanover Street taken in 1870 by an unknown
> photographer, making it likely to have been public domain from 1898.
> https://canmore.org.uk/collection/466213
> 2. Over 950 photographs taken by Francis M Christal, who died in 1944,
> making all photographs public domain in 2014:
> https://canmore.org.uk/collection/result?GROUPCATEGORY=5_
> KEYWORD=Francis%20M%20Chrystal_items_page=40
>
> 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,
> 
___
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] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

2017-08-19 Thread Fæ 
The Canmore database, https://canmore.org.uk, describes itself as the
"online catalogue of the National Record of the Historic Environment.
It holds detailed information and archive images for more than 300,000
places in Scotland." Canmore is part of Historic Environment Scotland
(HES).

I'm aware that Wikimedia UK has helped to fund several projects in
Scotland, so there is a network of contacts that could help take a
look at the problematic claims of copyright. Perhaps someone can offer
to take action to help Historic Environment Scotland reach a better
understanding of copyright and avoid basic copyfraud errors?

In theory this could be a marvelous reference resource for open
knowledge about the history of Scotland, but the online catalogue
seems more like a retail outlet geared to maximise the cash to be made
from selling archive images, many of which are obviously public
domain. There are two basic problems:
* The online archive is limited to 800px width images, with website
users directed to buy higher resolutions which are claimed to be a
minimum of 3,000 pixels wide.
* Regardless of age, source or photographer all images are claimed as
copyright with the conditions including "No permission is given for
any commercial use, distribution or reproduction in these terms.
Please use the BUY option for these purposes and separate licences
will be provided."

I would be delighted to release some of the public domain collections
from Canmore at high resolution to Wikimedia Commons, but at the
moment it's all locked down. In fact were I to try to release the
disappointingly small 800px versions of public domain images, even
using the "required" attribution to RCAHMS (which no longer exists), I
would be at personal risk of prosecution by HES based on the site
terms and conditions. See examples 1 and 2.

Examples:
1. Photograph of Hanover Street taken in 1870 by an unknown
photographer, making it likely to have been public domain from 1898.
https://canmore.org.uk/collection/466213
2. Over 950 photographs taken by Francis M Christal, who died in 1944,
making all photographs public domain in 2014:
https://canmore.org.uk/collection/result?GROUPCATEGORY=5_KEYWORD=Francis%20M%20Chrystal_items_page=40

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,