On 11/07/2009, Andrew wrote:
> Agreed with Gnangarra - I think if we approach them on agreeable terms and
> recognise that they have needs too that need to be factored in, and that we
> can fill them in on what we need and work out how that can be accommodated
> as well, then everyone can gain fr
Agreed with Gnangarra - I think if we approach them on agreeable terms and
recognise that they have needs too that need to be factored in, and that we
can fill them in on what we need and work out how that can be accommodated
as well, then everyone can gain from it. The successful approaches are
al
Opening communication between the Australian Institutions and wiki world is
what GLAM is for, at the extreme if such an issue was to arise with an
Australian Institution we would be able to resolve the concerns without
legal threats. GLAM is about us working together and understand each others
nee
well just for the record, I hope we can do better than referring to an
action clearly intended (however misguided) to protect the work of a
rather venerable cultural institution as 'batshit insane' :-) - I
rather think it runs the risk of making us seem a bit radical and
unfriendly - not my percept
On 11/07/2009, private musings wrote:
> This is rather important + serious stuff which relates to the 'GLAM' sector
> - hopefully we'll be leading the way in ensuring good communication may help
> resolve problems like this;
> (basically a Commons user has received a legal letter relating to uplo
This is rather important + serious stuff which relates to the 'GLAM' sector
- hopefully we'll be leading the way in ensuring good communication may help
resolve problems like this;
(basically a Commons user has received a legal letter relating to uploads of
photographs of gallery items)
http://co
