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

[Fæ]

 case, in a way that the chapter never would; given
my understanding of their recent managerial changes/issues and
organizational challenges, I suspect that harder approach may be more
effective than spending another four years trying soft soap.

P.S. Nick, while you are here, at your next meeting could you ask your
CEO to ensure that all emails from chapter domain addresses are
properly archived. If there is a PR, legal, or financial incident and,
say, a journalist is making claims about the chapter, you should be
able to definitively refer to your records, which legally includes
chapter emails.

Cheers,
Fae

Links
1. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_and_Wikimedia_Foundation_copyright_dispute
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Astinson_(WMF)
3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Project_list/PAS
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

> From: Wikimediauk-l [mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf 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 taught me that these kinds of moves are
> much more significant that we sometimes realise in terms of organisational
> culture, and I would wholeheartedly support the notion that this is the most
> that could be asked of them at this point.
>
>
>
> Sara Thomas
>
> [[User:lirazelf]]
>
>
>
> 
>
> From: Wikimediauk-l <wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of
> Lucy Crompton-Reid <lucy.crompton-r...@wikimedia.org.uk>
> Sent: 13 September 2017 16:05
> To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum
>
>
>
> Dear all
>
>
>
> I've heard back from Tullie House Museum and they are changing the no
> photography signs on the exhibition to remove the word copyright. However my
> understanding is that they do have a restriction on photography for the
> items loaned by the British Museum. My feeling is that this is the most we
> can ask Tullie House at this point, but that it highlights the need for
> continued advocacy about copyright and licensing issues to the cultural
> sector generally, and to the BM more specifically.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Lucy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 31 August 2017 at 10:28, Lucy Crompton-Reid
> <lucy.crompton-r...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
>
> 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 suspect the
> curator will be back now so this is a timely reminder to chase this up,
> which I will do!
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Lucy
>
>
>
> On 30 August 2017 at 19:50, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 to the record on Commons.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On 28 July 2017 at 13:34, Lucy Crompton-Reid
> <lucy.crompton-r...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
>> 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 contact both
>> institutions, in the first instance, to give them the opportunity to
>> correct
>> this. I'll let you know how I get on.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Lucy
>>
>> On 28 July 2017 at 13:24, Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28 July 2017 at 13:11, Richard Nevell
>>> <richard.nev...@wikimedia.org.uk> 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 mean - alternative proposed action?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andy Mabbett
>>> @pigsonthewing
&

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

[Lucy Crompton-Reid]

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 suspect the curator
will be back now so this is a timely reminder to chase this up, which I
will do!

Cheers
Lucy

On 30 August 2017 at 19:50, Fæ  wrote:

> 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 to the record on Commons.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On 28 July 2017 at 13:34, Lucy Crompton-Reid
>  wrote:
> > 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 contact both
> > institutions, in the first instance, to give them the opportunity to
> correct
> > this. I'll let you know how I get on.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Lucy
> >
> > 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 bridges for future collaboration.
> >>
> >> Perhaps, but as Fae indicates, it might also cause some movement.
> >>
> >> What's your - WMUK's, I mean - alternative proposed action?
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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) 207 065 0991
> >
> >
> >
> > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> > Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
> 4LT.
> >
> > 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.
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> 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 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

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

[Fæ]

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 to the record on Commons.

Thanks,
Fae

On 28 July 2017 at 13:34, Lucy Crompton-Reid
 wrote:
> 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 contact both
> institutions, in the first instance, to give them the opportunity to correct
> this. I'll let you know how I get on.
>
> Cheers
> Lucy
>
> 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 bridges for future collaboration.
>>
>> Perhaps, but as Fae indicates, it might also cause some movement.
>>
>> What's your - WMUK's, I mean - alternative proposed action?
>>
>> --
>> 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) 207 065 0991
>
>
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
>
> 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.
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

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

[geni]

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. Remember as recently as 2013 tullie house didn't
allow any photography at all.

-- 
geni

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

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

[Richard Symonds]

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 so would be more productive
than a grassroots campaign in this instance.

On 28 July 2017 at 20:32, Richard Symonds  wrote:

> 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
> team - working for free knowledge.
>
> That said, there's a bit of criticism - constructive, I hope. I'm not sure
> if further emails like the ones at https://commons.wikimedia.
> org/wiki/User:F%C3%A6/email/IWM would be very helpful - they didn't work
> at the time, and clearly haven't worked in the past four years, despite
> your tweeting. The issue the IWM had in that case was that they didn't
> agree with you that it was copyfraud. The solution would be a sit-down talk
> between professionals, that is as you say, "invest some resources into
> changing their minds".
>
> I remember trying this with the IWM in 2013 - at the time, I was talking
> to the institution about the WW1 centenary, which they were the driving
> force behind. They were happy to talk, and extremely friendly, and we had
> several meetings with them. However, they had issues with the emails that
> you were sending to them, which they saw as rude, passive-aggressive, and
> generally unhelpful. The institution didn't see them as polite
> correspondence, and it made them reticent to work with Wikipedia because
> they didn't feel like they could be a part of a community that spoke to
> people like that. I know that to you the emails were professional and to
> the point, and objectively correct. But to them it came across as
> unprofessional, and that it happened during the run-up to the WWI centenary
> made it very difficult for Wikipedia to get involved in the commemorations
> in any more than a passive capacity. You redoubled your efforts after you
> saw the IWM refusing to change, but sometimes, our passion for change - for
> righting the wrongs in the world - makes us seem like fanatics to
> middle-managers in cultural institutions. This pushed them away, and made
> it harder for them to understand our point of view.
>
> The solution here is, as you say, friendly and professional discussions -
> social media campaigns about it, as well as using words like "copyfraud"
> (which invoke thoughts of criminality in the minds of the reader), are
> counterproductive. We need to be professional and approachable, engendering
> change through example, and although social media campaigns and shaming
> work sometimes (and are legitimate ways of forcing change on an old
> institution), we have to be careful not to go to it as a first option,
> especially when our strength in WMUK is our professional connections
> throughout the third sector and "GLAM" world.
>
> On 28 July 2017 at 18:16, Fæ  wrote:
>
>> 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%20Reg
>> ulations%20FINAL.pdf
>> > section 8.1] here: "8.1 Except where indicated by notices, you are
>> permitted
>> > to use hand-held cameras (including mobile phones) with flash bulbs or
>> flash
>> > units, and audio and film recording equipment not requiring a stand.
>> You may
>> > use your photographs, film and audio recordings only for your own
>> private
>> > and non-commercial purposes." The same goes for the images on their
>> website.
>> >
>> > But as I think Fae knows, they have in the past kindly facilitated
>> > back-stage photography of objects by Wikipedians, knowing the images
>> will be
>> > uploaded to Commons. Matthew Cock, our former main contact left some
>> years
>> > ago. Most "policy" matters are hard to change at the BM because of the
>> size
>> > of the organization. Everything "would have to go to the Trustees" - an
>> > appalling vista for middle management.
>> >
>> > No doubt the THM is trying to enforce these standard terms, reflected
>> in the
>> > loan agreement, more strictly than the BM itself does. I'm not sure
>> there's
>> > much point in going to or after them.
>> >
>> > One day their main policy will improve, but they are not easy to
>> pressure -
>> > in practice things work ok as it is, normally.
>> >
>> > John
>>
>> Thanks John, I recall us having meetings with BM folks. It was
>> illuminating hearing how things work from the inside. Within my
>> personal network I have some insight into the BM specifically, and
>> other large 

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

[Richard Symonds]

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
team - working for free knowledge.

That said, there's a bit of criticism - constructive, I hope. I'm not sure
if further emails like the ones at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:F%C3%A6/email/IWM would be very
helpful - they didn't work at the time, and clearly haven't worked in the
past four years, despite your tweeting. The issue the IWM had in that case
was that they didn't agree with you that it was copyfraud. The solution
would be a sit-down talk between professionals, that is as you say, "invest
some resources into changing their minds".

I remember trying this with the IWM in 2013 - at the time, I was talking to
the institution about the WW1 centenary, which they were the driving force
behind. They were happy to talk, and extremely friendly, and we had several
meetings with them. However, they had issues with the emails that you were
sending to them, which they saw as rude, passive-aggressive, and generally
unhelpful. The institution didn't see them as polite correspondence, and it
made them reticent to work with Wikipedia because they didn't feel like
they could be a part of a community that spoke to people like that. I know
that to you the emails were professional and to the point, and objectively
correct. But to them it came across as unprofessional, and that it happened
during the run-up to the WWI centenary made it very difficult for Wikipedia
to get involved in the commemorations in any more than a passive capacity.
You redoubled your efforts after you saw the IWM refusing to change, but
sometimes, our passion for change - for righting the wrongs in the world -
makes us seem like fanatics to middle-managers in cultural institutions.
This pushed them away, and made it harder for them to understand our point
of view.

The solution here is, as you say, friendly and professional discussions -
social media campaigns about it, as well as using words like "copyfraud"
(which invoke thoughts of criminality in the minds of the reader), are
counterproductive. We need to be professional and approachable, engendering
change through example, and although social media campaigns and shaming
work sometimes (and are legitimate ways of forcing change on an old
institution), we have to be careful not to go to it as a first option,
especially when our strength in WMUK is our professional connections
throughout the third sector and "GLAM" world.

On 28 July 2017 at 18:16, Fæ  wrote:

> 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 notices, you are
> permitted
> > to use hand-held cameras (including mobile phones) with flash bulbs or
> flash
> > units, and audio and film recording equipment not requiring a stand. You
> may
> > use your photographs, film and audio recordings only for your own private
> > and non-commercial purposes." The same goes for the images on their
> website.
> >
> > But as I think Fae knows, they have in the past kindly facilitated
> > back-stage photography of objects by Wikipedians, knowing the images
> will be
> > uploaded to Commons. Matthew Cock, our former main contact left some
> years
> > ago. Most "policy" matters are hard to change at the BM because of the
> size
> > of the organization. Everything "would have to go to the Trustees" - an
> > appalling vista for middle management.
> >
> > No doubt the THM is trying to enforce these standard terms, reflected in
> the
> > loan agreement, more strictly than the BM itself does. I'm not sure
> there's
> > much point in going to or after them.
> >
> > One day their main policy will improve, but they are not easy to
> pressure -
> > in practice things work ok as it is, normally.
> >
> > John
>
> Thanks John, I recall us having meetings with BM folks. It was
> illuminating hearing how things work from the inside. Within my
> personal network I have some insight into the BM specifically, and
> other large academic related institutions. In general we get a
> positive response from curators and researchers who may plan an
> exhibition, in fact their issues with our open projects are spot on
> and match our own concerns. But this is a very separate world from the
> operations and marketing middle management who make the final
> decisions on loan policies and public exhibition standards.
>
> From the perspective of open knowledge advocates, after meetings and
> presentations I have had curators shake my hand and thank me for
> saying things they cannot. One of the great 

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

[Fæ]

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 notices, you are permitted
> to use hand-held cameras (including mobile phones) with flash bulbs or flash
> units, and audio and film recording equipment not requiring a stand. You may
> use your photographs, film and audio recordings only for your own private
> and non-commercial purposes." The same goes for the images on their website.
>
> But as I think Fae knows, they have in the past kindly facilitated
> back-stage photography of objects by Wikipedians, knowing the images will be
> uploaded to Commons. Matthew Cock, our former main contact left some years
> ago. Most "policy" matters are hard to change at the BM because of the size
> of the organization. Everything "would have to go to the Trustees" - an
> appalling vista for middle management.
>
> No doubt the THM is trying to enforce these standard terms, reflected in the
> loan agreement, more strictly than the BM itself does. I'm not sure there's
> much point in going to or after them.
>
> One day their main policy will improve, but they are not easy to pressure -
> in practice things work ok as it is, normally.
>
> John

Thanks John, I recall us having meetings with BM folks. It was
illuminating hearing how things work from the inside. Within my
personal network I have some insight into the BM specifically, and
other large academic related institutions. In general we get a
positive response from curators and researchers who may plan an
exhibition, in fact their issues with our open projects are spot on
and match our own concerns. But this is a very separate world from the
operations and marketing middle management who make the final
decisions on loan policies and public exhibition standards.

From the perspective of open knowledge advocates, after meetings and
presentations I have had curators shake my hand and thank me for
saying things they cannot. One of the great benefits of having unpaid
volunteers like us knocking around with no "professional" affiliation
with the institutions that may manage the content we are passionate
about, is that we can say obvious things, without worrying too much
about diplomacy or PR.

Despite being criticised for making waves every now and then, it's
those personal thanks for doing what I do that will encourage me to
call unambiguous copyfraud, copyfraud, whenever I see it.

If anyone wants to see my previous efforts trying politely talking to
IP lawyers representing an institution that simply does not get it,
they can take a look at my correspondence with the Imperial War
Museum.[1] It's four years since I very politely and clearly gave them
the facts about their continued copyfraud, and they have not lifted a
finger to correct it. I guess they are too big to care about my tweets
that continue to point out this problem,[2] however it would be great
if WMUK wanted to invest some resources into changing their minds; in
line with our shared vision of open knowledge and free access to
public content.

Links
1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/email/IWM IWM emails.
2. https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/890954001990201346 example tweet
on copyfraud from earlier today.

Cheers,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

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

[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) with flash bulbs or flash units, and audio and film recording equipment not requiring a stand. You may use your photographs, film and audio recordings only for your own private and non-commercial purposes." The same goes for the images on their website. But as I think Fae knows, they have in the past kindly facilitated back-stage photography of objects by Wikipedians, knowing the images will be uploaded to Commons. Matthew Cock, our former main contact left some years ago. Most "policy" matters are hard to change at the BM because of the size of the organization. Everything "would have to go to the Trustees" - an appalling vista for middle management. No doubt the THM is trying to enforce these standard terms, reflected in the loan agreement, more strictly than the BM itself does. I'm not sure there's much point in going to or after them. One day their main policy will improve, but they are not easy to pressure - in practice things work ok as it is, normally. JohnJohn Byrne
 

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

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

[Richard Symonds]

+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 correct it.
>
> My feeling is that Tullie House is a small museum with limited staff, so
> they sloppily applied the "no photo because copyright" tag onto the stands
> of any borrowed exhibit and simply forgot that this object is >200 years
> old and therefore no longer copyrighted. Starting the message with
> "copyfraud" catches Wikimedians' attention, but isn't helpful towards
> achieving our outcome of actually getting things into open copyright or
> making sure public domain things don't get restricted.
>
> --Deryck
>
> On 28 July 2017 at 15:52, Richard Symonds  wrote:
>
>> 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
>>> 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 regard to deletions and allowed
>>> photographs where there are false claims of copyright being made.
>>> Certainly I would be extremely concerned if the Wikimedia Foundation
>>> were in any way funding events or projects in partnership with a GLAM
>>> institution that continues to propagate copyfraud, rather than taking
>>> positive action to stamp it out.
>>>
>>> We can see by simply looking at the photographs that copyfraud is
>>> being committed by the Tullie House Museum, as they give members of
>>> the public tickets for the exhibition, and are fully responsible for
>>> the exhibition itself. I agree it is not clear yet whether the British
>>> Museum have specifically required the Tullie House Museum to use this
>>> particular sign and text. That would be a great question to get
>>> answered.
>>>
>>> I find it highly unlikely that the THM have used a notice that was not
>>> agreed with the BM, in just the same way as the text of the related
>>> labels and posters would be agreed. Despite the same exhibition having
>>> many other artefacts from different museums across Europe and several
>>> objects on loan from personal collections, I could not see any other
>>> signs of this type against anything other than objects on loan from
>>> the BM.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Fae
>>>
>>> On 28 July 2017 at 14:14, Michael Maggs  wrote:
>>> > 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 terms are pretty common where works are sent out on loan,
>>> sometimes to
>>> > protect delicate artworks from flash. Here of course there is no need
>>> for
>>> > such protection.
>>> >
>>> > A quiet word with
>>> > Tullie House Museum would seem the best way forward, first to see
>>> whether
>>> > they are indeed required by the BM to prohibit photography, and second
>>> to
>>> > explain that any such restriction has nothing to do with copyright and
>>> > should not be expressed as such.  Enquiry and education, not shaming.
>>> >
>>> > Michael
>>> >
>>> > On 28 Jul 2017, at 13:11, Richard Nevell <
>>> richard.nev...@wikimedia.org.uk>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 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 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 copyfraud, and not for any reason that
>>> >> might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible
>>> >> as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims
>>> >> over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a
>>> >> money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and
>>> >> charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put
>>> >> to public use and be freely accessible".
>>> >>
>>> >> Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that
>>> >> might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm
>>> 

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

[Deryck Chan]

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 sloppily applied the "no photo because copyright" tag onto the stands
of any borrowed exhibit and simply forgot that this object is >200 years
old and therefore no longer copyrighted. Starting the message with
"copyfraud" catches Wikimedians' attention, but isn't helpful towards
achieving our outcome of actually getting things into open copyright or
making sure public domain things don't get restricted.

--Deryck

On 28 July 2017 at 15:52, Richard Symonds  wrote:

> 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
>> 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 regard to deletions and allowed
>> photographs where there are false claims of copyright being made.
>> Certainly I would be extremely concerned if the Wikimedia Foundation
>> were in any way funding events or projects in partnership with a GLAM
>> institution that continues to propagate copyfraud, rather than taking
>> positive action to stamp it out.
>>
>> We can see by simply looking at the photographs that copyfraud is
>> being committed by the Tullie House Museum, as they give members of
>> the public tickets for the exhibition, and are fully responsible for
>> the exhibition itself. I agree it is not clear yet whether the British
>> Museum have specifically required the Tullie House Museum to use this
>> particular sign and text. That would be a great question to get
>> answered.
>>
>> I find it highly unlikely that the THM have used a notice that was not
>> agreed with the BM, in just the same way as the text of the related
>> labels and posters would be agreed. Despite the same exhibition having
>> many other artefacts from different museums across Europe and several
>> objects on loan from personal collections, I could not see any other
>> signs of this type against anything other than objects on loan from
>> the BM.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Fae
>>
>> On 28 July 2017 at 14:14, Michael Maggs  wrote:
>> > 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 terms are pretty common where works are sent out on loan,
>> sometimes to
>> > protect delicate artworks from flash. Here of course there is no need
>> for
>> > such protection.
>> >
>> > A quiet word with
>> > Tullie House Museum would seem the best way forward, first to see
>> whether
>> > they are indeed required by the BM to prohibit photography, and second
>> to
>> > explain that any such restriction has nothing to do with copyright and
>> > should not be expressed as such.  Enquiry and education, not shaming.
>> >
>> > Michael
>> >
>> > On 28 Jul 2017, at 13:11, Richard Nevell > uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > 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 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 copyfraud, and not for any reason that
>> >> might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible
>> >> as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims
>> >> over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a
>> >> money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and
>> >> charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put
>> >> to public use and be freely accessible".
>> >>
>> >> Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that
>> >> might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm
>> >> wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social
>> >> media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The
>> >> reputational risk the apparent ignorance over 

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

[Richard Symonds]

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
> 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 regard to deletions and allowed
> photographs where there are false claims of copyright being made.
> Certainly I would be extremely concerned if the Wikimedia Foundation
> were in any way funding events or projects in partnership with a GLAM
> institution that continues to propagate copyfraud, rather than taking
> positive action to stamp it out.
>
> We can see by simply looking at the photographs that copyfraud is
> being committed by the Tullie House Museum, as they give members of
> the public tickets for the exhibition, and are fully responsible for
> the exhibition itself. I agree it is not clear yet whether the British
> Museum have specifically required the Tullie House Museum to use this
> particular sign and text. That would be a great question to get
> answered.
>
> I find it highly unlikely that the THM have used a notice that was not
> agreed with the BM, in just the same way as the text of the related
> labels and posters would be agreed. Despite the same exhibition having
> many other artefacts from different museums across Europe and several
> objects on loan from personal collections, I could not see any other
> signs of this type against anything other than objects on loan from
> the BM.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On 28 July 2017 at 14:14, Michael Maggs  wrote:
> > 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 terms are pretty common where works are sent out on loan, sometimes
> to
> > protect delicate artworks from flash. Here of course there is no need for
> > such protection.
> >
> > A quiet word with
> > Tullie House Museum would seem the best way forward, first to see whether
> > they are indeed required by the BM to prohibit photography, and second to
> > explain that any such restriction has nothing to do with copyright and
> > should not be expressed as such.  Enquiry and education, not shaming.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > On 28 Jul 2017, at 13:11, Richard Nevell  uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > 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 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 copyfraud, and not for any reason that
> >> might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible
> >> as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims
> >> over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a
> >> money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and
> >> charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put
> >> to public use and be freely accessible".
> >>
> >> Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that
> >> might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm
> >> wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social
> >> media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The
> >> reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM
> >> loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct,
> >> so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite private
> >> letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save
> >> hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the
> >> sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a
> >> few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
> >>
> >> Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away
> >> from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards
> >> sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to
> >> try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a
> >> few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies, might
> >> mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs 

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

[Fæ]

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 regard to deletions and allowed
photographs where there are false claims of copyright being made.
Certainly I would be extremely concerned if the Wikimedia Foundation
were in any way funding events or projects in partnership with a GLAM
institution that continues to propagate copyfraud, rather than taking
positive action to stamp it out.

We can see by simply looking at the photographs that copyfraud is
being committed by the Tullie House Museum, as they give members of
the public tickets for the exhibition, and are fully responsible for
the exhibition itself. I agree it is not clear yet whether the British
Museum have specifically required the Tullie House Museum to use this
particular sign and text. That would be a great question to get
answered.

I find it highly unlikely that the THM have used a notice that was not
agreed with the BM, in just the same way as the text of the related
labels and posters would be agreed. Despite the same exhibition having
many other artefacts from different museums across Europe and several
objects on loan from personal collections, I could not see any other
signs of this type against anything other than objects on loan from
the BM.

Thanks,
Fae

On 28 July 2017 at 14:14, Michael Maggs  wrote:
> 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 terms are pretty common where works are sent out on loan, sometimes to
> protect delicate artworks from flash. Here of course there is no need for
> such protection.
>
> A quiet word with
> Tullie House Museum would seem the best way forward, first to see whether
> they are indeed required by the BM to prohibit photography, and second to
> explain that any such restriction has nothing to do with copyright and
> should not be expressed as such.  Enquiry and education, not shaming.
>
> Michael
>
> On 28 Jul 2017, at 13:11, Richard Nevell 
> wrote:
>
> 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 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 copyfraud, and not for any reason that
>> might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible
>> as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims
>> over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a
>> money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and
>> charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put
>> to public use and be freely accessible".
>>
>> Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that
>> might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm
>> wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social
>> media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The
>> reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM
>> loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct,
>> so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite private
>> letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save
>> hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the
>> sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a
>> few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
>>
>> Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away
>> from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards
>> sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to
>> try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a
>> few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies, might
>> mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are
>> still alive to see it happen.
>>
>> Links
>> 1.
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_2nd_century_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
>> 2.
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_Fortuna_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
>> 3. Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition:
>>
>> 

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

[Michael Maggs]

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 terms are pretty common where works are sent out on loan, sometimes to 
protect delicate artworks from flash. Here of course there is no need for such 
protection. 

A quiet word with 
Tullie House Museum would seem the best way forward, first to see whether they 
are indeed required by the BM to prohibit photography, and second to explain 
that any such restriction has nothing to do with copyright and should not be 
expressed as such.  Enquiry and education, not shaming. 

Michael 

> On 28 Jul 2017, at 13:11, Richard Nevell  
> wrote:
> 
> 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 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 copyfraud, and not for any reason that
>> might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible
>> as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims
>> over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a
>> money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and
>> charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put
>> to public use and be freely accessible".
>> 
>> Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that
>> might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm
>> wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social
>> media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The
>> reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM
>> loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct,
>> so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite private
>> letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save
>> hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the
>> sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a
>> few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
>> 
>> Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away
>> from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards
>> sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to
>> try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a
>> few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies, might
>> mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are
>> still alive to see it happen.
>> 
>> Links
>> 1. 
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_2nd_century_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
>> 2. 
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_Fortuna_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
>> 3. Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition:
>> http://web.archive.org/web/20161030151228/www.tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries-collections/galleries/roman-frontier-gallery
>> 4. British Museum "about us":
>> http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/management/about_us.aspx
>> 5. Commons village pump discussion:
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#British_Museum_and_blatant_copyfraud
>> 
>> Contacts
>> * https://twitter.com/britishmuseum
>> * https://twitter.com/TullieHouse
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Fae
>> --
>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Andy Mabbett]

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 might have
been placed at the instigation of the THM, with no BM involvement.

-- 
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] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Fæ]

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 the (unpaid)
Wikimedia UK national GLAM coordinator. I know how stuff works in
practice and in politics. Any change that is promised to happen in
more than a year is a waste of time based on hard evidence.
Fortunately the BM has good lawyers and PR experts, I welcome them to
contact me directly to assure our community of volunteers that the
institution is serious about the public benefit and free access their
board has committed to.

Any BM staff reading this can email me at fae...@gmail.com, I'm
friendly and will keep an open mind. :-)

Thanks,
Fae

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.
>
> 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 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 copyfraud, and not for any reason that
>> might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible
>> as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims
>> over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a
>> money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and
>> charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put
>> to public use and be freely accessible".
>>
>> Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that
>> might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm
>> wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social
>> media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The
>> reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM
>> loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct,
>> so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite private
>> letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save
>> hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the
>> sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a
>> few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
>>
>> Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away
>> from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards
>> sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to
>> try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a
>> few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies, might
>> mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are
>> still alive to see it happen.
>>
>> Links
>> 1.
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_2nd_century_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
>> 2.
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_Fortuna_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
>> 3. Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition:
>>
>> http://web.archive.org/web/20161030151228/www.tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries-collections/galleries/roman-frontier-gallery
>> 4. British Museum "about us":
>>
>> http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/management/about_us.aspx
>> 5. Commons village pump discussion:
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#British_Museum_and_blatant_copyfraud
>>
>> Contacts
>> * https://twitter.com/britishmuseum
>> * https://twitter.com/TullieHouse
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Fae
>> --
>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>
>> ___
>> 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

-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

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

[Lucy Crompton-Reid]

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, 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 contact both
> institutions, in the first instance, to give them the opportunity to
> correct this. I'll let you know how I get on.
>
> Cheers
> Lucy
>
> 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 bridges for future collaboration.
>>
>> Perhaps, but as Fae indicates, it might also cause some movement.
>>
>> What's your - WMUK's, I mean - alternative proposed action?
>>
>> --
>> 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) 207 065 0991
>
>
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
>
> 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.*
>



-- 

Lucy Crompton-Reid

Chief Executive

Wikimedia UK

+44 (0) 207 065 0991



Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.

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

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

[Charles Matthews]

> 
> 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 bridges for future collaboration.
> 
> Perhaps, but as Fae indicates, it might also cause some movement.
> 
> What's your - WMUK's, I mean - alternative proposed action?
> 

As a Cumbrian by upbringing (not so far from Carlisle), I would suggest not
attributing anything to anything when there is something else you could
attribute it to.

Charles___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

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

[Lucy Crompton-Reid]

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 contact both
institutions, in the first instance, to give them the opportunity to
correct this. I'll let you know how I get on.

Cheers
Lucy

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 bridges for future collaboration.
>
> Perhaps, but as Fae indicates, it might also cause some movement.
>
> What's your - WMUK's, I mean - alternative proposed action?
>
> --
> 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) 207 065 0991



Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.

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

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

[Richard Nevell]

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 meantime I can try to contact an appropriate curator. If we can get
them onside that is the first step.
On 28 Jul 2017 13:25, "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 bridges for future collaboration.
>
> Perhaps, but as Fae indicates, it might also cause some movement.
>
> What's your - WMUK's, I mean - alternative proposed action?
>
> --
> 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] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Andy Mabbett]

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 mean - alternative proposed action?

-- 
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] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Andy Mabbett]

"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 flash), as the restrictions are
> shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that
> might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible
> as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims
> over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a
> money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and
> charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put
> to public use and be freely accessible".

That on of the most egregious cases I've ever seen.

I note that the exhibition, according to the web page (your link [3]), is:

"Funded by The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Northwest
Regional Development Agency (NWDA), Renaissance Northwest and Carlisle
City Council."

I wonder whether they're aware of these false claims? I should imagine
Julia Reda would be interested, given that EU money is involved.

-- 
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] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Richard Nevell]

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 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 copyfraud, and not for any reason that
> might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible
> as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims
> over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a
> money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and
> charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put
> to public use and be freely accessible".
>
> Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that
> might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm
> wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social
> media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The
> reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM
> loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct,
> so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite private
> letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save
> hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the
> sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a
> few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
>
> Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away
> from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards
> sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to
> try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a
> few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies, might
> mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are
> still alive to see it happen.
>
> Links
> 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_2nd_
> century_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
> 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_
> Fortuna_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
> 3. Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition:
> http://web.archive.org/web/20161030151228/www.tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries-
> collections/galleries/roman-frontier-gallery
> 4. British Museum "about us":
> http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/
> management/about_us.aspx
> 5. Commons village pump discussion:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#
> British_Museum_and_blatant_copyfraud
>
> Contacts
> * https://twitter.com/britishmuseum
> * https://twitter.com/TullieHouse
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> 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