alf Of Sara Thomas
> Sent: 13 September 2017 19:06
>
>
> To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum
>
>
>
> Great to see the movement on this! My experience in the museums sector
> during my MGS residency in 2015-2016 t
Hi Fae
You may not have seen my message to this list a few weeks ago that I had been
in touch with the Director at Tullie House Museum, who thinks the copyright
notice may be a mistake on their part - however he needed to check with the
curator responsible who was on holiday at the time. I
Ping :-)
It's been over a month, does anyone know if the Tullie House Museum
has removed the misleading copyright notices?
If there has been no contact yet, I'd be happy to send off a letter as
a long term Wikimedia Commons volunteer to the BM and the THM for an
official response that I can add
On 28 July 2017 at 13:24, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> Perhaps, but as Fae indicates, it might also cause some movement.
>
> What's your - WMUK's, I mean - alternative proposed action?
Do nothing. The pressure from camera phone crowd takes care of the
matter quite nicely.
To go back to my original point, rather than off on a tangent about
something that happened many years ago:
I think it's really important we reach out to the IWM through WMUK's
professional networks, with face-to-face meetings, and would really support
WMUK if they chose to do that. I think to do
First: I know me and you haven't got on very well in the past Fae, so I
want to underline that this email is meant in the friendliest way possible.
I really appreciate the work you do on Commons, and am deeply struck by the
passion with which you approach our shared goal. We're both on the same
On 28 July 2017 at 17:18, John Byrne wrote:
> The BM still in effect operates a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on
> photography - see
> [http://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/2011-11-14%20Visitor%20Regulations%20FINAL.pdf
> section 8.1] here: "8.1 Except where indicated by
The BM still in effect operates a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on photography - see [http://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/2011-11-14%20Visitor%20Regulations%20FINAL.pdf section 8.1] here: "8.1 Except where indicated by notices, you are permitted to use hand-held cameras (including mobile phones)
+1, Deryck
On 28 July 2017 at 16:53, Deryck Chan wrote:
> I agree with Lucy's approach here. We should try to raise this issue
> directly and privately with the museum involved to let them know they've
> made a mistake with the copyright of the object and ask them to
I agree with Lucy's approach here. We should try to raise this issue
directly and privately with the museum involved to let them know they've
made a mistake with the copyright of the object and ask them to correct it.
My feeling is that Tullie House is a small museum with limited staff, so
they
Trigger warning: sensible suggestions, I know those can be upsetting
Might a friendly email to the museum have helped, just explaining the issue
and suggesting a solution?
On 28 Jul 2017 14:32, "Fæ" wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. Just to be clear, this absolutely is a
>
Thanks for the feedback. Just to be clear, this absolutely is a
classic example of copyfraud. To say "I see no evidence of copyfraud
by the BM" is precisely correct, however this is still copyfraud. It's
an example that is very handy for Wikimedia Commons to use to
illustrate its own policies with
While the text on the labels is obviously wrong, I see no evidence of copyfraud
by the BM.
The labels are most likely placed by the Tullie House Museum in a (confused)
effort to comply with a contractual term of the loan, under which the receiving
museum must not allow photography.
Such
On 28 July 2017 at 13:36, Fæ wrote:
> Per Andy. It would be interesting to see a timely and positive
> proposal from WMUK. If nothing else to arrange a meeting with the BM
> loans manager. I'd be happy to join in.
Me too - though it should be borne in mind that the labels
Per Andy. It would be interesting to see a timely and positive
proposal from WMUK. If nothing else to arrange a meeting with the BM
loans manager. I'd be happy to join in.
Replying to "misguided", please keep in mind that I supported and
negotiated events with the BM over several years and was
I see my reply coincided with Richard's (who is working in Edinburgh today
so we're not in the office together). Will discuss with him and others on
the team and agree an approach. Best, Lucy
On 28 July 2017 at 13:34, Lucy Crompton-Reid <
lucy.crompton-r...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
> Hi Fae,
>
> On 28 July 2017 at 13:24 Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
>
> On 28 July 2017 at 13:11, Richard Nevell
> wrote:
> > Attempting to embarrass the British Museum is misguided and certainly
> > would
> > not build
Hi Fae, Andy, and all
I agree that trying to apply copyright to a 2000 year old item is pretty
outrageous, although I'm going to suppose that it stems from ignorance
rather than anything else. We have some contacts at the BM although I'm not
sure about Tullie House Museum, however I'm happy to
It might get some action in the short term, but at what cost? What Fae just
proposed is to make Wikimedia a reputational risk. This would scare people
away from open access potentially doing long term damage.
I don't have a magic bullet, but this kind of approach is decidedly
worrying.
In the
On 28 July 2017 at 13:11, Richard Nevell
wrote:
> Attempting to embarrass the British Museum is misguided and certainly would
> not build bridges for future collaboration.
Perhaps, but as Fae indicates, it might also cause some movement.
What's your - WMUK's, I
"On 28 July 2017 at 13:02, Fæ wrote:
> The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan
> from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those
> objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs
> of two of these (without any
Attempting to embarrass the British Museum is misguided and certainly would
not build bridges for future collaboration.
On 28 Jul 2017 13:03, "Fæ" wrote:
> The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan
> from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it
The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan
from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those
objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs
of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are
shockingly obvious cases of
23 matches
Mail list logo