Re: [Wikimediauk-l] British Museum, copyright and public domain images
> On 26 August 2020 at 13:22 Andy Mabbett wrote: > > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 20:45, Stella Wisdom wrote: > > > organisational change is not always easy, or quick! > > That's a fair point - but it's also worth bearing in mind that the BM > had a Wikimedian in Residence in 2010, and the BL (for whom I and > other WMUK volunteers have also donated our time, at several events) > had one in 2012. It is also worth bearing in mind that Liam Wyatt was at the British Museum only for a short time in summer 2010; and that Matthew Cock, the Head of Web with whom most of the Wikimedia dealings went on, was concerned mainly with public engagement rather than open content, and left the BM in 2014. I see no point in overstating what a WiR can do, but of course others may disagree. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] British Museum, copyright and public domain images
On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 20:45, Stella Wisdom wrote: > organisational change is not always easy, or quick! That's a fair point - but it's also worth bearing in mind that the BM had a Wikimedian in Residence in 2010, and the BL (for whom I and other WMUK volunteers have also donated our time, at several events) had one in 2012. > there is definitely a willingness in the BL to collaborate more with Wikimedia That's good to hear. -- 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] British Museum, copyright and public domain images
"organisational change is not always easy, or quick! Especially in a climate of austerity, budget cuts etc" I need the above printed on a t-shirt I think! On Wed, 12 Aug 2020, 20:46 Stella Wisdom, wrote: > Thanks Richard. I honestly think the lack of attribution in this specific > blog post was ignorance rather than malice. > I've contacted the Head of Department and they will be adding an > attribution next to the image. > > In my experience, there are many staff working in GLAM organisations > wanting to make more digital collections open, but organisational change is > not always easy, or quick! Especially in a climate of austerity, budget > cuts etc. > However, there is definitely a willingness in the BL to collaborate more > with Wikimedia and for the Library to learn how to be more open. > > Stella > > > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2020, 20:16 Richard Symonds, wrote: > >> Seems like a good solution Stella, thank you! We all make mistakes, >> especially in organisations, and we know you mean well and that this was a >> genuine mistake. I hope Fae will see attribution as fine. >> >> Fae obviously feels very strongly about large museums and open rights, >> and he's put a lot of emotional effort into pushing things to be more open. >> We all have, and sometimes our feeling comes through very strongly and can >> read as a little harsh. >> >> But don't forget that you and your colleagues are part of our community >> too! Thank you for the work you're doing once again. >> >> Richard >> >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2020, 18:02 Stella Wisdom, >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Fae, >>> >>> Mike is correct, this is a British Library blog post, which >>> discusses the Royal Gold Cup, which is an item in the British Museum >>> collections. However the gold cup is mentioned in British Library >>> manuscripts, hence the connection and relevance, for including an image of >>> the cup in the blog post about the manuscripts. >>> >>> I am not sure which British Library curator in the Medieval and Early >>> Modern Department has written this blog post, it may be written by a >>> collaborative PhD student from that section. I'm sure the post's author >>> would willingly add an attribution and a link to Wikimedia Commons, or >>> would you prefer your photograph to be removed from the post? >>> I can contact the Head of this Dept to ask. >>> >>> I am trying to encourage my curatorial colleagues in the British Library >>> to add out of copyright BL digitised collections to Wikimedia Commons and >>> Wikisource. >>> I am also in the process of being able to hire a new Wikimedian in >>> Residence for the British Library (I've been arranging funding sources for >>> this), who will assist with staff training and guidance, building on from >>> the fabulous work that Andrew Gray did a few years ago. >>> So I am keen for my British Library colleagues to have good relations >>> with the Wikimedia community. >>> >>> best wishes, >>> Stella >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2020, 17:05 Michael Peel, wrote: >>> Hi Fae, The reuse seems to be by the British Library, not the British Museum, here. Asking them for £400 seems a bit odd/steep ( https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/1293503130987122688). Thanks, Mike > On 12 Aug 2020, at 13:05, Fæ wrote: > > Dear Lucy, > > It's just over 3 months ago that your offer to talk with the British > Museum about claiming copyright over public domain images, and > consequently charging academics and other reusers large fees to use > images which should be free to the public. Has there been any progress > and what came of the plan to discuss this topic at the recent AGM? > > As a further reference case study of the British Museum continuing > using what Wikimedians call "license laundering"[0], this week they > have claimed all rights reserved for my own photograph released on > Wikimedia Commons a decade ago to support Wikipedia editathons working > with the Museum, as CC-BY-SA.[1][2] The BM has removed EXIF data, and > not attempted to apply a simple attribution, or perhaps fail to > understand what is required to respect moral rights. A remarkable > failure considering the museum and their online presence sets the > standard for many other UK GLAM institutions. > > Thanks, > Fae > > Links > 0. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:License_laundering > 1. https://web.archive.org/web/20200812105445/https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2020/08/jewels-make-the-virgin-queen.html > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Gold_Cup_lid.jpg > > -- > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > > > On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 16:20, Lucy Crompton-Reid > wrote: >> >> Dear all >> >> >> As a number of people have noted already, it is indeed disappointing that the
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] British Museum, copyright and public domain images
Thanks Richard. I honestly think the lack of attribution in this specific blog post was ignorance rather than malice. I've contacted the Head of Department and they will be adding an attribution next to the image. In my experience, there are many staff working in GLAM organisations wanting to make more digital collections open, but organisational change is not always easy, or quick! Especially in a climate of austerity, budget cuts etc. However, there is definitely a willingness in the BL to collaborate more with Wikimedia and for the Library to learn how to be more open. Stella On Wed, 12 Aug 2020, 20:16 Richard Symonds, wrote: > Seems like a good solution Stella, thank you! We all make mistakes, > especially in organisations, and we know you mean well and that this was a > genuine mistake. I hope Fae will see attribution as fine. > > Fae obviously feels very strongly about large museums and open rights, and > he's put a lot of emotional effort into pushing things to be more open. We > all have, and sometimes our feeling comes through very strongly and can > read as a little harsh. > > But don't forget that you and your colleagues are part of our community > too! Thank you for the work you're doing once again. > > Richard > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2020, 18:02 Stella Wisdom, wrote: > >> Hi Fae, >> >> Mike is correct, this is a British Library blog post, which discusses the >> Royal Gold Cup, which is an item in the British Museum collections. However >> the gold cup is mentioned in British Library manuscripts, hence the >> connection and relevance, for including an image of the cup in the blog >> post about the manuscripts. >> >> I am not sure which British Library curator in the Medieval and Early >> Modern Department has written this blog post, it may be written by a >> collaborative PhD student from that section. I'm sure the post's author >> would willingly add an attribution and a link to Wikimedia Commons, or >> would you prefer your photograph to be removed from the post? >> I can contact the Head of this Dept to ask. >> >> I am trying to encourage my curatorial colleagues in the British Library >> to add out of copyright BL digitised collections to Wikimedia Commons and >> Wikisource. >> I am also in the process of being able to hire a new Wikimedian in >> Residence for the British Library (I've been arranging funding sources for >> this), who will assist with staff training and guidance, building on from >> the fabulous work that Andrew Gray did a few years ago. >> So I am keen for my British Library colleagues to have good relations >> with the Wikimedia community. >> >> best wishes, >> Stella >> >> >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2020, 17:05 Michael Peel, wrote: >> >>> Hi Fae, >>> >>> The reuse seems to be by the British Library, not the British Museum, >>> here. Asking them for £400 seems a bit odd/steep ( >>> https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/1293503130987122688). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Mike >>> >>> > On 12 Aug 2020, at 13:05, Fæ wrote: >>> > >>> > Dear Lucy, >>> > >>> > It's just over 3 months ago that your offer to talk with the British >>> > Museum about claiming copyright over public domain images, and >>> > consequently charging academics and other reusers large fees to use >>> > images which should be free to the public. Has there been any progress >>> > and what came of the plan to discuss this topic at the recent AGM? >>> > >>> > As a further reference case study of the British Museum continuing >>> > using what Wikimedians call "license laundering"[0], this week they >>> > have claimed all rights reserved for my own photograph released on >>> > Wikimedia Commons a decade ago to support Wikipedia editathons working >>> > with the Museum, as CC-BY-SA.[1][2] The BM has removed EXIF data, and >>> > not attempted to apply a simple attribution, or perhaps fail to >>> > understand what is required to respect moral rights. A remarkable >>> > failure considering the museum and their online presence sets the >>> > standard for many other UK GLAM institutions. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Fae >>> > >>> > Links >>> > 0. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:License_laundering >>> > 1. >>> https://web.archive.org/web/20200812105445/https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2020/08/jewels-make-the-virgin-queen.html >>> > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Gold_Cup_lid.jpg >>> > >>> > -- >>> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 16:20, Lucy Crompton-Reid >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Dear all >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> As a number of people have noted already, it is indeed disappointing >>> that the British Museum has released these images under a non commercial >>> licence, given the obvious restrictions to people actually accessing and >>> using them. Whilst staff at Wikimedia UK have many partnerships within the >>> cultural sector, including larger institutions, the BM is not currently one >>> of them. However I will get in touch
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] British Museum, copyright and public domain images
Seems like a good solution Stella, thank you! We all make mistakes, especially in organisations, and we know you mean well and that this was a genuine mistake. I hope Fae will see attribution as fine. Fae obviously feels very strongly about large museums and open rights, and he's put a lot of emotional effort into pushing things to be more open. We all have, and sometimes our feeling comes through very strongly and can read as a little harsh. But don't forget that you and your colleagues are part of our community too! Thank you for the work you're doing once again. Richard On Wed, 12 Aug 2020, 18:02 Stella Wisdom, wrote: > Hi Fae, > > Mike is correct, this is a British Library blog post, which discusses the > Royal Gold Cup, which is an item in the British Museum collections. However > the gold cup is mentioned in British Library manuscripts, hence the > connection and relevance, for including an image of the cup in the blog > post about the manuscripts. > > I am not sure which British Library curator in the Medieval and Early > Modern Department has written this blog post, it may be written by a > collaborative PhD student from that section. I'm sure the post's author > would willingly add an attribution and a link to Wikimedia Commons, or > would you prefer your photograph to be removed from the post? > I can contact the Head of this Dept to ask. > > I am trying to encourage my curatorial colleagues in the British Library > to add out of copyright BL digitised collections to Wikimedia Commons and > Wikisource. > I am also in the process of being able to hire a new Wikimedian in > Residence for the British Library (I've been arranging funding sources for > this), who will assist with staff training and guidance, building on from > the fabulous work that Andrew Gray did a few years ago. > So I am keen for my British Library colleagues to have good relations with > the Wikimedia community. > > best wishes, > Stella > > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2020, 17:05 Michael Peel, wrote: > >> Hi Fae, >> >> The reuse seems to be by the British Library, not the British Museum, >> here. Asking them for £400 seems a bit odd/steep ( >> https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/1293503130987122688). >> >> Thanks, >> Mike >> >> > On 12 Aug 2020, at 13:05, Fæ wrote: >> > >> > Dear Lucy, >> > >> > It's just over 3 months ago that your offer to talk with the British >> > Museum about claiming copyright over public domain images, and >> > consequently charging academics and other reusers large fees to use >> > images which should be free to the public. Has there been any progress >> > and what came of the plan to discuss this topic at the recent AGM? >> > >> > As a further reference case study of the British Museum continuing >> > using what Wikimedians call "license laundering"[0], this week they >> > have claimed all rights reserved for my own photograph released on >> > Wikimedia Commons a decade ago to support Wikipedia editathons working >> > with the Museum, as CC-BY-SA.[1][2] The BM has removed EXIF data, and >> > not attempted to apply a simple attribution, or perhaps fail to >> > understand what is required to respect moral rights. A remarkable >> > failure considering the museum and their online presence sets the >> > standard for many other UK GLAM institutions. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Fae >> > >> > Links >> > 0. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:License_laundering >> > 1. >> https://web.archive.org/web/20200812105445/https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2020/08/jewels-make-the-virgin-queen.html >> > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Gold_Cup_lid.jpg >> > >> > -- >> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae >> > >> > >> > On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 16:20, Lucy Crompton-Reid >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear all >> >> >> >> >> >> As a number of people have noted already, it is indeed disappointing >> that the British Museum has released these images under a non commercial >> licence, given the obvious restrictions to people actually accessing and >> using them. Whilst staff at Wikimedia UK have many partnerships within the >> cultural sector, including larger institutions, the BM is not currently one >> of them. However I will get in touch with them and point out the issues >> with the licence they’ve chosen. If anyone has any contacts at the Museum >> they would be able to share with me that would be very helpful - and of >> course, you are also welcome to lobby them as individuals. >> >> >> >> >> >> I’m not sure that I quite agree with the characterisation of Wikimedia >> UK as “advocating for a position at variance with that of the wider >> movement when it comes to claiming non commercial copyright on out of >> copyright material”. Indeed, in a talk I gave at a Westminster Media Forum >> policy event on the EU copyright directive last year, I said: >> >> >> >> >> >> “Access to and re-use of centuries old paintings, part of our cultural >> heritage, is being increasingly
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] British Museum, copyright and public domain images
Hi Fae, Mike is correct, this is a British Library blog post, which discusses the Royal Gold Cup, which is an item in the British Museum collections. However the gold cup is mentioned in British Library manuscripts, hence the connection and relevance, for including an image of the cup in the blog post about the manuscripts. I am not sure which British Library curator in the Medieval and Early Modern Department has written this blog post, it may be written by a collaborative PhD student from that section. I'm sure the post's author would willingly add an attribution and a link to Wikimedia Commons, or would you prefer your photograph to be removed from the post? I can contact the Head of this Dept to ask. I am trying to encourage my curatorial colleagues in the British Library to add out of copyright BL digitised collections to Wikimedia Commons and Wikisource. I am also in the process of being able to hire a new Wikimedian in Residence for the British Library (I've been arranging funding sources for this), who will assist with staff training and guidance, building on from the fabulous work that Andrew Gray did a few years ago. So I am keen for my British Library colleagues to have good relations with the Wikimedia community. best wishes, Stella On Wed, 12 Aug 2020, 17:05 Michael Peel, wrote: > Hi Fae, > > The reuse seems to be by the British Library, not the British Museum, > here. Asking them for £400 seems a bit odd/steep ( > https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/1293503130987122688). > > Thanks, > Mike > > > On 12 Aug 2020, at 13:05, Fæ wrote: > > > > Dear Lucy, > > > > It's just over 3 months ago that your offer to talk with the British > > Museum about claiming copyright over public domain images, and > > consequently charging academics and other reusers large fees to use > > images which should be free to the public. Has there been any progress > > and what came of the plan to discuss this topic at the recent AGM? > > > > As a further reference case study of the British Museum continuing > > using what Wikimedians call "license laundering"[0], this week they > > have claimed all rights reserved for my own photograph released on > > Wikimedia Commons a decade ago to support Wikipedia editathons working > > with the Museum, as CC-BY-SA.[1][2] The BM has removed EXIF data, and > > not attempted to apply a simple attribution, or perhaps fail to > > understand what is required to respect moral rights. A remarkable > > failure considering the museum and their online presence sets the > > standard for many other UK GLAM institutions. > > > > Thanks, > > Fae > > > > Links > > 0. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:License_laundering > > 1. > https://web.archive.org/web/20200812105445/https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2020/08/jewels-make-the-virgin-queen.html > > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Gold_Cup_lid.jpg > > > > -- > > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > > > > > > On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 16:20, Lucy Crompton-Reid > > wrote: > >> > >> Dear all > >> > >> > >> As a number of people have noted already, it is indeed disappointing > that the British Museum has released these images under a non commercial > licence, given the obvious restrictions to people actually accessing and > using them. Whilst staff at Wikimedia UK have many partnerships within the > cultural sector, including larger institutions, the BM is not currently one > of them. However I will get in touch with them and point out the issues > with the licence they’ve chosen. If anyone has any contacts at the Museum > they would be able to share with me that would be very helpful - and of > course, you are also welcome to lobby them as individuals. > >> > >> > >> I’m not sure that I quite agree with the characterisation of Wikimedia > UK as “advocating for a position at variance with that of the wider > movement when it comes to claiming non commercial copyright on out of > copyright material”. Indeed, in a talk I gave at a Westminster Media Forum > policy event on the EU copyright directive last year, I said: > >> > >> > >> “Access to and re-use of centuries old paintings, part of our cultural > heritage, is being increasingly restricted by an array of laws and in-house > rules within cultural institutions aiming to maintain control of their > digital copies. This causes many classical works, for instance, to be > unavailable to the public online, despite them being part of the public > domain. > >> > >> > >> Part of the social balance under copyright and related rights is that > at some point the exclusive economic rights expire and the works become > part of our shared cultural heritage. This makes up a large portion of the > public domain and ensures wide access to our culture and the freedom to > create and innovate. Unfortunately, in the past decades we have seen > increasing attempts to restrict our cultural heritage by claiming copyright > on public domain works, or by
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] British Museum, copyright and public domain images
Hi Fae, The reuse seems to be by the British Library, not the British Museum, here. Asking them for £400 seems a bit odd/steep (https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/1293503130987122688). Thanks, Mike > On 12 Aug 2020, at 13:05, Fæ wrote: > > Dear Lucy, > > It's just over 3 months ago that your offer to talk with the British > Museum about claiming copyright over public domain images, and > consequently charging academics and other reusers large fees to use > images which should be free to the public. Has there been any progress > and what came of the plan to discuss this topic at the recent AGM? > > As a further reference case study of the British Museum continuing > using what Wikimedians call "license laundering"[0], this week they > have claimed all rights reserved for my own photograph released on > Wikimedia Commons a decade ago to support Wikipedia editathons working > with the Museum, as CC-BY-SA.[1][2] The BM has removed EXIF data, and > not attempted to apply a simple attribution, or perhaps fail to > understand what is required to respect moral rights. A remarkable > failure considering the museum and their online presence sets the > standard for many other UK GLAM institutions. > > Thanks, > Fae > > Links > 0. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:License_laundering > 1. > https://web.archive.org/web/20200812105445/https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2020/08/jewels-make-the-virgin-queen.html > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Gold_Cup_lid.jpg > > -- > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > > > On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 16:20, Lucy Crompton-Reid > wrote: >> >> Dear all >> >> >> As a number of people have noted already, it is indeed disappointing that >> the British Museum has released these images under a non commercial licence, >> given the obvious restrictions to people actually accessing and using them. >> Whilst staff at Wikimedia UK have many partnerships within the cultural >> sector, including larger institutions, the BM is not currently one of them. >> However I will get in touch with them and point out the issues with the >> licence they’ve chosen. If anyone has any contacts at the Museum they would >> be able to share with me that would be very helpful - and of course, you are >> also welcome to lobby them as individuals. >> >> >> I’m not sure that I quite agree with the characterisation of Wikimedia UK as >> “advocating for a position at variance with that of the wider movement when >> it comes to claiming non commercial copyright on out of copyright material”. >> Indeed, in a talk I gave at a Westminster Media Forum policy event on the EU >> copyright directive last year, I said: >> >> >> “Access to and re-use of centuries old paintings, part of our cultural >> heritage, is being increasingly restricted by an array of laws and in-house >> rules within cultural institutions aiming to maintain control of their >> digital copies. This causes many classical works, for instance, to be >> unavailable to the public online, despite them being part of the public >> domain. >> >> >> Part of the social balance under copyright and related rights is that at >> some point the exclusive economic rights expire and the works become part of >> our shared cultural heritage. This makes up a large portion of the public >> domain and ensures wide access to our culture and the freedom to create and >> innovate. Unfortunately, in the past decades we have seen increasing >> attempts to restrict our cultural heritage by claiming copyright on public >> domain works, or by establishing new rights on exact digital copies of old >> works. These practices complicate and sometimes prevent the digitisation of >> and digital access to our culture. >> >> >> The [EU copyright] Directive therefore provides for a safeguard of public >> domain works. We must make sure no new rights are applied to digital copies >> of artworks whose copyright has expired. This includes both no copyright >> term extension for such rules and no related rights. The current situation >> in the UK on this is quite inconclusive, with works that would be considered >> to be public domain under US law potentially subject to copyright under UK >> law. Indeed the courts in the UK traditionally applied a very low test for >> photographic originality, based on the "skill and labour" required to >> capture the image. In the IPO’s updated copyright advice notice in 2015, it >> acknowledges that there is a degree of uncertainty regarding whether >> copyright can exist in digitised copies of older images for which copyright >> has expired. However it also states that according to the Court of Justice >> of the European Union, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is >> original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. >> This higher standard should be unequivocally applied to UK cultural heritage >>
[Wikimediauk-l] British Museum, copyright and public domain images
Dear Lucy, It's just over 3 months ago that your offer to talk with the British Museum about claiming copyright over public domain images, and consequently charging academics and other reusers large fees to use images which should be free to the public. Has there been any progress and what came of the plan to discuss this topic at the recent AGM? As a further reference case study of the British Museum continuing using what Wikimedians call "license laundering"[0], this week they have claimed all rights reserved for my own photograph released on Wikimedia Commons a decade ago to support Wikipedia editathons working with the Museum, as CC-BY-SA.[1][2] The BM has removed EXIF data, and not attempted to apply a simple attribution, or perhaps fail to understand what is required to respect moral rights. A remarkable failure considering the museum and their online presence sets the standard for many other UK GLAM institutions. Thanks, Fae Links 0. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:License_laundering 1. https://web.archive.org/web/20200812105445/https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2020/08/jewels-make-the-virgin-queen.html 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Gold_Cup_lid.jpg -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 16:20, Lucy Crompton-Reid wrote: > > Dear all > > > As a number of people have noted already, it is indeed disappointing that the > British Museum has released these images under a non commercial licence, > given the obvious restrictions to people actually accessing and using them. > Whilst staff at Wikimedia UK have many partnerships within the cultural > sector, including larger institutions, the BM is not currently one of them. > However I will get in touch with them and point out the issues with the > licence they’ve chosen. If anyone has any contacts at the Museum they would > be able to share with me that would be very helpful - and of course, you are > also welcome to lobby them as individuals. > > > I’m not sure that I quite agree with the characterisation of Wikimedia UK as > “advocating for a position at variance with that of the wider movement when > it comes to claiming non commercial copyright on out of copyright material”. > Indeed, in a talk I gave at a Westminster Media Forum policy event on the EU > copyright directive last year, I said: > > > “Access to and re-use of centuries old paintings, part of our cultural > heritage, is being increasingly restricted by an array of laws and in-house > rules within cultural institutions aiming to maintain control of their > digital copies. This causes many classical works, for instance, to be > unavailable to the public online, despite them being part of the public > domain. > > > Part of the social balance under copyright and related rights is that at some > point the exclusive economic rights expire and the works become part of our > shared cultural heritage. This makes up a large portion of the public domain > and ensures wide access to our culture and the freedom to create and > innovate. Unfortunately, in the past decades we have seen increasing attempts > to restrict our cultural heritage by claiming copyright on public domain > works, or by establishing new rights on exact digital copies of old works. > These practices complicate and sometimes prevent the digitisation of and > digital access to our culture. > > > The [EU copyright] Directive therefore provides for a safeguard of public > domain works. We must make sure no new rights are applied to digital copies > of artworks whose copyright has expired. This includes both no copyright term > extension for such rules and no related rights. The current situation in the > UK on this is quite inconclusive, with works that would be considered to be > public domain under US law potentially subject to copyright under UK law. > Indeed the courts in the UK traditionally applied a very low test for > photographic originality, based on the "skill and labour" required to capture > the image. In the IPO’s updated copyright advice notice in 2015, it > acknowledges that there is a degree of uncertainty regarding whether > copyright can exist in digitised copies of older images for which copyright > has expired. However it also states that according to the Court of Justice of > the European Union, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is > original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. > This higher standard should be unequivocally applied to UK cultural heritage > institutions, who might be inadvertently engaging in copyfraud.” > > > Previously, at a ministerial roundtable on the directive, I raised this very > point with the Minister (at the time), who seemed completely unaware of the > practice of copyrighting digital reproductions of public domain works, and > remarked that this was certainly “outside of the spirit” of existing law and
