Re: [Wikimediauk-l] British Museum makes 1.9m images available under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[Lucy Crompton-Reid]

Yes, I think that's a very good point Andy. I agree that many people are
probably unaware of their rights to our collective cultural heritage, and
would instinctively feel that publicly funded institutions should, at the
very least, uphold those rights. Thanks, Lucy

On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 10:55, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 16:19, Lucy Crompton-Reid
>  wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > To come back more specifically to the BM issue, I will follow this up
> next week.
>
> Thank you, Lucy.
>
> I have been reflecting on this over the weekend. As well as the two
> prongs of our lobbying the BM (choosing a better licence for images
> where they hold the copyright; and not claiming copyright in PD
> material), I think there is a third approach we can take, not specific
> to the BM.
>
> We as individuals and as a movement, and WMUK specifically could do
> more to inform the public of their rights - that material whose
> copyright has expired is theirs to freely reuse, and that bogus
> copyright claims regarding such material impinge on such rights.
>
> --
> 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



-- 
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 203 372 0762

*Wikimedia UK* is the national chapter for the global Wikimedia open
knowledge movement, and a registered charity. We rely on donations from
individuals to support our work to make knowledge open for all. Have you
considered supporting Wikimedia? https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk
Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered
No. 6741827
Registered Charity No.1144513
Registered Office Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London
SE1 0NZ

The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate
Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent
non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility
for its contents.
___
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 makes 1.9m images available under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[Andy Mabbett]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 16:19, Lucy Crompton-Reid
 wrote:

[...]

> To come back more specifically to the BM issue, I will follow this up next 
> week.

Thank you, Lucy.

I have been reflecting on this over the weekend. As well as the two
prongs of our lobbying the BM (choosing a better licence for images
where they hold the copyright; and not claiming copyright in PD
material), I think there is a third approach we can take, not specific
to the BM.

We as individuals and as a movement, and WMUK specifically could do
more to inform the public of their rights - that material whose
copyright has expired is theirs to freely reuse, and that bogus
copyright claims regarding such material impinge on such rights.

-- 
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 makes 1.9m images available under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[Lucy Crompton-Reid]

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 proposed legislation. Both of those policy interventions
point to our general approach towards non-commercial licenses and to issues
around copyfraud.

However it’s true that we do, as a chapter, work with a broad range of
institutions, some of whom claim non commercial copyright on out of
copyright material. We challenge this where we see it, albeit usually
through meetings and discussions, rather than in public fora. Indeed, much
of our work with the cultural sector involves this kind of internal
advocacy, and we can see the impact of this in the institutions who go on
to change their policy and practice and release a substantial amount of
content onto open licences. We also continue to talk to grantmaking
organisations to encourage them to move away from non commercial licences
for themselves and their grantees - although again, we primarily do this in
collaboration/discussion rather than on a public forum. It’s probably fair
to say we take a carrot, rather than a stick, approach on this - but I
think that’s a question of tactics, rather than of policy.


Having said all of that, I don’t want to shut down debate and would be very
happy for there to be questions and discussions on this at our next AGM
(which is indeed going to be online, for reasons that are clearly outside
of our control). As a staff team we have recently started planning this
event, which is going to be on Saturday 18th July, and have already started
thinking about how we ensure the Q part of the day is 

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] British Museum makes 1.9m images available under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[Harry Mitchell]

I agree that it's only a matter of time before somebody does it but, as
with the NPG a few years ago, the BM are likely to be quite upset if we
can't get them to see it from our point of view. If anyone has any relevant
contacts it might be worth reaching out. It could be that they don't fully
understand the difference between CC-By-SA and CC-By-NC and how the latter
prevents use on Wikipedia. On the other hand, it could be that they're
claiming copyright based on the "sweat of brow" doctrine, which hasn't been
fully tested in British courts.

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:21 PM WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Andy makes some important points.
>
> We know that even if editors in the UK respect what the British Museum is
> doing and don't upload those images to Commons or Wikipedia; where they are
> public domain images under US law, it is just a matter of time before
> someone in the movement, anywhere in the world, uploads any of those
> British Museum images that are of old two D objects to Commons as Public
> Domain images that can be used without attribution to the photographer or
> the institution.
>
> Of course large parts of the British Museum collection would involve
> images of three d objects. In those case we can't use the BM images, but
> outside of lockdown people can either go there and take photos, or if  you
> can't get yourself to the British Museum with a camera,  make a request via
> the London Meetup, and if the object is on display we can get results such
> as at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_altarpiece_(WB.232)
>
>
> The chapter remains in the awkward position of liaising with institutions
> that regard it as acceptable to claim  a non commercial copyright on out of
> copyright material, and of in effect advocating for a position at variance
> with that of the wider movement.
>
> One option that the chapter could consider would be to shift policy and
> instead start to diplomatically lobby UK Museum's to, as Andy put it, stop
> " trying to appropriate rights that belong to us all." Perhaps those on
> this list who are still members of the chapter might consider raising this
> for a debate at the next AGM?
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 21:06, Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 11:43, Owen Blacker  wrote:
>> >
>> > That it's a non-commercial licence is really disappointing, but that's
>> still a little better than nothing…
>>
>> With the emphasis on the "little". There are two things wrong with
>> this, which we as a movement (and individually) need to challenge; at
>> very reasonable opportunity.
>>
>> Firstly, there's the way they're spending public money making non-free
>> original content. we need to persuade GLAMs - and lobby funders - that
>> such material should be freely reusable.
>>
>> But far more troubling is the attempt to claim copyright in works
>> whose copyright - if the work didn't pre-date copyright completely -
>> expired decades or centuries ago. The latter means, in effect that
>> they are trying to appropriate rights that belong to us all.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] British Museum makes 1.9m images available under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[Fæ]

Thanks WSC,

Though our recent experience in UK chapter AGMs is that they neither
have hustings nor honestly welcomed "debates" for a few years now. As
this year's AGM will be a yet to be detailed virtual event, it's even
more unlikely that sufficient of the 500{{cn}} registered members will
take part actively to make meaningful hustings, or more than 10% of
the members to be engaged enough to vote on anything even if enabled
remotely using more than passive broadcast methods.

With regard to the British Museum, as Mike notes, some of us have been
educating through to lobbying them about better copyright policies for
a decade, frequently with individual curators as supportive of better
policies as we are. It is no coincidence that my own photograph of an
object in the BM collection is the lead image on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud. Facts are facts, those of us
passionate about open knowledge should not be so worried about an
institutional or middle-management focus on PR that we fail to be
openly critical in plain English about their commercial choices that
seriously damage open knowledge or the free use of public domain
works.

Fae

On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 12:21, WereSpielChequers
 wrote:
>
> Andy makes some important points.
>
> We know that even if editors in the UK respect what the British Museum is 
> doing and don't upload those images to Commons or Wikipedia; where they are 
> public domain images under US law, it is just a matter of time before someone 
> in the movement, anywhere in the world, uploads any of those British Museum 
> images that are of old two D objects to Commons as Public Domain images that 
> can be used without attribution to the photographer or the institution.
>
> Of course large parts of the British Museum collection would involve images 
> of three d objects. In those case we can't use the BM images, but outside of 
> lockdown people can either go there and take photos, or if  you can't get 
> yourself to the British Museum with a camera,  make a request via the London 
> Meetup, and if the object is on display we can get results such as at 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_altarpiece_(WB.232)
>
>
> The chapter remains in the awkward position of liaising with institutions 
> that regard it as acceptable to claim  a non commercial copyright on out of 
> copyright material, and of in effect advocating for a position at variance 
> with that of the wider movement.
>
> One option that the chapter could consider would be to shift policy and 
> instead start to diplomatically lobby UK Museum's to, as Andy put it, stop " 
> trying to appropriate rights that belong to us all." Perhaps those on this 
> list who are still members of the chapter might consider raising this for a 
> debate at the next AGM?
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 21:06, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 11:43, Owen Blacker  wrote:
>> >
>> > That it's a non-commercial licence is really disappointing, but that's 
>> > still a little better than nothing…
>>
>> With the emphasis on the "little". There are two things wrong with
>> this, which we as a movement (and individually) need to challenge; at
>> very reasonable opportunity.
>>
>> Firstly, there's the way they're spending public money making non-free
>> original content. we need to persuade GLAMs - and lobby funders - that
>> such material should be freely reusable.
>>
>> But far more troubling is the attempt to claim copyright in works
>> whose copyright - if the work didn't pre-date copyright completely -
>> expired decades or centuries ago. The latter means, in effect that
>> they are trying to appropriate rights that belong to us all.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] British Museum makes 1.9m images available under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[WereSpielChequers]

Andy makes some important points.

We know that even if editors in the UK respect what the British Museum is
doing and don't upload those images to Commons or Wikipedia; where they are
public domain images under US law, it is just a matter of time before
someone in the movement, anywhere in the world, uploads any of those
British Museum images that are of old two D objects to Commons as Public
Domain images that can be used without attribution to the photographer or
the institution.

Of course large parts of the British Museum collection would involve images
of three d objects. In those case we can't use the BM images, but outside
of lockdown people can either go there and take photos, or if  you can't
get yourself to the British Museum with a camera,  make a request via the
London Meetup, and if the object is on display we can get results such as
at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_altarpiece_(WB.232)


The chapter remains in the awkward position of liaising with institutions
that regard it as acceptable to claim  a non commercial copyright on out of
copyright material, and of in effect advocating for a position at variance
with that of the wider movement.

One option that the chapter could consider would be to shift policy and
instead start to diplomatically lobby UK Museum's to, as Andy put it, stop
" trying to appropriate rights that belong to us all." Perhaps those on
this list who are still members of the chapter might consider raising this
for a debate at the next AGM?

Regards

Jonathan



On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 21:06, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 11:43, Owen Blacker  wrote:
> >
> > That it's a non-commercial licence is really disappointing, but that's
> still a little better than nothing…
>
> With the emphasis on the "little". There are two things wrong with
> this, which we as a movement (and individually) need to challenge; at
> very reasonable opportunity.
>
> Firstly, there's the way they're spending public money making non-free
> original content. we need to persuade GLAMs - and lobby funders - that
> such material should be freely reusable.
>
> But far more troubling is the attempt to claim copyright in works
> whose copyright - if the work didn't pre-date copyright completely -
> expired decades or centuries ago. The latter means, in effect that
> they are trying to appropriate rights that belong to us all.
>
> --
> 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
___
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 makes 1.9m images available under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[Michael Peel]

This is a difficult problem to solve. Remember that the WMUK was talking with 
the British Museum way back in 2009/2010, which led to the first Wikipedian in 
Residence. That they are now using a CC licence is a good step forward, however 
I suspect the ’NC’ difficulty is related to the existence of 
https://www.bmimages.com/ .

On the plus side, my photos of the Hoxne Hoard have seen ~400,000 views over 
the last 10 years through enwp. It’s just a shame that BM is losing out on that 
traffic for their own imagery.

Thanks,
Mike

> On 29 Apr 2020, at 21:04, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 11:43, Owen Blacker  wrote:
>> 
>> That it's a non-commercial licence is really disappointing, but that's still 
>> a little better than nothing…
> 
> With the emphasis on the "little". There are two things wrong with
> this, which we as a movement (and individually) need to challenge; at
> very reasonable opportunity.
> 
> Firstly, there's the way they're spending public money making non-free
> original content. we need to persuade GLAMs - and lobby funders - that
> such material should be freely reusable.
> 
> But far more troubling is the attempt to claim copyright in works
> whose copyright - if the work didn't pre-date copyright completely -
> expired decades or centuries ago. The latter means, in effect that
> they are trying to appropriate rights that belong to us all.
> 
> -- 
> 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


___
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 makes 1.9m images available under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[Andy Mabbett]

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 11:43, Owen Blacker  wrote:
>
> That it's a non-commercial licence is really disappointing, but that's still 
> a little better than nothing…

With the emphasis on the "little". There are two things wrong with
this, which we as a movement (and individually) need to challenge; at
very reasonable opportunity.

Firstly, there's the way they're spending public money making non-free
original content. we need to persuade GLAMs - and lobby funders - that
such material should be freely reusable.

But far more troubling is the attempt to claim copyright in works
whose copyright - if the work didn't pre-date copyright completely -
expired decades or centuries ago. The latter means, in effect that
they are trying to appropriate rights that belong to us all.

-- 
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 makes 1.9m images available under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[Katie Crampton]

Thanks Owen! The Natural History Museum did this with their Data Portal

as
they were building it. Thanks to Andy Mabbet for letting us know that
high-res images of their specimens are now being uploaded on Commons
.
I'm an advocate for getting their bee specimens on Commons if anyone wants
to give that a go :)

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 11:44, Owen Blacker  wrote:

> That it's a non-commercial licence is really disappointing, but that's
> still a little better than nothing…
>
>
> https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2020/04/28/british-museum-makes-1-9-million-images-available-for-free/
>
>
> The British Museum has revamped its online collections database, making
> over 1.9 million photos of its collection available for free online under a
> Creative Commons license.
>
> Under the new agreement the majority of the 1.9 million images are being
> made available for anyone to use for free under a Creative Commons 4.0
> license . Users no
> longer need to register to use these photographs, and can now download them
> directly from the British Museum.
>
> Under the terms of the Creative Commons license, you are free to share and
> adapt the images for non-commercial use, but must include a credit to the
> British Museum.
> [continues]
> --
> Owen Blacker, London GB
> @owenblacker 
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk



-- 

Katie Crampton

Communications & Governance Assistant

Wikimedia UK

+44 (0)203 372 0761

*Wikimedia UK* is the national chapter for the global Wikimedia open
knowledge movement. We rely on donations from individuals to support our
work to make knowledge open for all. Have you considered supporting
Wikimedia? https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ

.

Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The
Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate
Wikipedia, amongst other projects).


*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

[Wikimediauk-l] British Museum makes 1.9m images available under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[Owen Blacker]

That it's a non-commercial licence is really disappointing, but that's
still a little better than nothing…

https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2020/04/28/british-museum-makes-1-9-million-images-available-for-free/


The British Museum has revamped its online collections database, making
over 1.9 million photos of its collection available for free online under a
Creative Commons license.

Under the new agreement the majority of the 1.9 million images are being
made available for anyone to use for free under a Creative Commons 4.0
license . Users no
longer need to register to use these photographs, and can now download them
directly from the British Museum.

Under the terms of the Creative Commons license, you are free to share and
adapt the images for non-commercial use, but must include a credit to the
British Museum.
[continues]
-- 
Owen Blacker, London GB
@owenblacker 
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk