[Wikimediauk-l] Re: "Court of Appeal ruling will prevent UK museums from charging reproduction fees—at last"
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 11:09, WereSpielChequers wrote: > Of course rumour has it that some institutions weren't even getting as much > from image licencing as it cost them to market and sell those images. On the contrary; it's been confirmed by several institutions themselves, in response to FoI requests. Conversely, there is no hard evidence of any institution making a significant profit from such licensing, much less then investing it in digitisation. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
[Wikimediauk-l] Re: "Court of Appeal ruling will prevent UK museums from charging reproduction fees—at last"
I think one of the biggest misunderstandings is that museums etc think they
*can't* sell merchandise if they don't own copyright.
One of the things WMUK could help with when talking to institutions is
explaining that they can still put the photo on a mug or a postcard in the
gift shop. (And if they host Wikipedians for a day they'll probably sell
some! I always buy something in a museum gift shop just to support the
museum.)
Harry
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024, 11:15 Lucy Crompton-Reid, <
lucy.crompton-r...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
> Completely agree Jonathan. Let's hope that your more positive scenario is
> the one that happens - it's certainly what we (and I know many others,
> including your good self) advocate to the sector. Best, Lucy
>
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 11:10, WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Re: "It is certainly strange to me that some cultural organisations
>> pursue image licensing as a loss making venture that also borders on
>> copyfraud..."
>>
>> I'm hoping that museums will still want to spend money on digitising
>> their content. But we need to be realistic, if they can't subsidise that by
>> getting at least some of the money back from image licensing, they may do
>> less of it.
>>
>> Of course rumour has it that some institutions weren't even getting as
>> much from image licencing as it cost them to market and sell those images.
>> My hope is that fewer institutions will think of digitisation in terms of
>> fundraising and more in terms of fulfilling their mission of preserving and
>> recording their collection and making their collections available to all.
>>
>> But my fear is that there will be more items that can only be seen if
>> visited and the only available images are photos of the painting on mugs
>> and jigsaws from the museum shop.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 at 14:39, Andy Mabbett
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 at 09:39, Deryck Chan wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I'm slightly confused by the article. It refers to THJ vs Sheridan
>>> (2023)
>>> > but that ruling was about software-generated graphs and said nothing
>>> > about reproducing out-of-copyright content?
>>>
>>> It doesn't need to. It clarifies the conditions under which a
>>> copyright is created; the subject matter is immaterial.
>>>
>>> See paragraphs 14-16 ("The Law"), in particular:
>>>
>>> "What is required [for copyright to exist] is that the author was able
>>> to express their creative abilities in the production of the work by
>>> making free and creative choices so as to stamp the work created with
>>> their
>>> personal touch [...] This criterion is not satisfied where the content
>>> of the work is dictated by technical considerations, rules or other
>>> constraints which leave no room for creative freedom"
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>>> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>
>
>
> --
> Lucy Crompton-Reid
> Chief Executive
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
[Wikimediauk-l] Re: "Court of Appeal ruling will prevent UK museums from charging reproduction fees—at last"
Completely agree Jonathan. Let's hope that your more positive scenario is
the one that happens - it's certainly what we (and I know many others,
including your good self) advocate to the sector. Best, Lucy
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 11:10, WereSpielChequers
wrote:
> Re: "It is certainly strange to me that some cultural organisations pursue
> image licensing as a loss making venture that also borders on copyfraud..."
>
> I'm hoping that museums will still want to spend money on digitising their
> content. But we need to be realistic, if they can't subsidise that by
> getting at least some of the money back from image licensing, they may do
> less of it.
>
> Of course rumour has it that some institutions weren't even getting as
> much from image licencing as it cost them to market and sell those images.
> My hope is that fewer institutions will think of digitisation in terms of
> fundraising and more in terms of fulfilling their mission of preserving and
> recording their collection and making their collections available to all.
>
> But my fear is that there will be more items that can only be seen if
> visited and the only available images are photos of the painting on mugs
> and jigsaws from the museum shop.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 at 14:39, Andy Mabbett
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 at 09:39, Deryck Chan wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm slightly confused by the article. It refers to THJ vs Sheridan
>> (2023)
>> > but that ruling was about software-generated graphs and said nothing
>> > about reproducing out-of-copyright content?
>>
>> It doesn't need to. It clarifies the conditions under which a
>> copyright is created; the subject matter is immaterial.
>>
>> See paragraphs 14-16 ("The Law"), in particular:
>>
>> "What is required [for copyright to exist] is that the author was able
>> to express their creative abilities in the production of the work by
>> making free and creative choices so as to stamp the work created with
>> their
>> personal touch [...] This criterion is not satisfied where the content
>> of the work is dictated by technical considerations, rules or other
>> constraints which leave no room for creative freedom"
>> ___
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
[Wikimediauk-l] Re: "Court of Appeal ruling will prevent UK museums from charging reproduction fees—at last"
Re: "It is certainly strange to me that some cultural organisations pursue
image licensing as a loss making venture that also borders on copyfraud..."
I'm hoping that museums will still want to spend money on digitising their
content. But we need to be realistic, if they can't subsidise that by
getting at least some of the money back from image licensing, they may do
less of it.
Of course rumour has it that some institutions weren't even getting as much
from image licencing as it cost them to market and sell those images. My
hope is that fewer institutions will think of digitisation in terms of
fundraising and more in terms of fulfilling their mission of preserving and
recording their collection and making their collections available to all.
But my fear is that there will be more items that can only be seen if
visited and the only available images are photos of the painting on mugs
and jigsaws from the museum shop.
Jonathan
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 at 14:39, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 at 09:39, Deryck Chan wrote:
> >
> > I'm slightly confused by the article. It refers to THJ vs Sheridan (2023)
> > but that ruling was about software-generated graphs and said nothing
> > about reproducing out-of-copyright content?
>
> It doesn't need to. It clarifies the conditions under which a
> copyright is created; the subject matter is immaterial.
>
> See paragraphs 14-16 ("The Law"), in particular:
>
> "What is required [for copyright to exist] is that the author was able
> to express their creative abilities in the production of the work by
> making free and creative choices so as to stamp the work created with
> their
> personal touch [...] This criterion is not satisfied where the content
> of the work is dictated by technical considerations, rules or other
> constraints which leave no room for creative freedom"
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
