Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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.

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum (John Byrne)

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum (John Byrne)

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum (John Byrne)

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum (John Byrne)

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)

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

+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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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 >

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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,

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

> > 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

"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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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