Rogol, it's worth repeating that the only one here talking about
fraudulent conduct is yourself.

I'll pass on repeating it again. What I originally posted is obviously
not getting read.

Thanks,
Fae

On 28 July 2017 at 21:49, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fae,
>
> That single sentence does not express "the issue" as I am sure you are well
> aware.  I imagine it does not entirely capture your views on this complex
> subject either.  So it is not really very helpful.
>
> Chris Keating's email depicts the likely course of events better than your
> over-excited claims of "fraudulent" conduct and it would be wise to
> actually find out what the BM's stance is before criticising it, or calling
> for social media campaigns to change it.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 28 July 2017 at 21:29, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Fae
>> >
>> > When you use the headline "Copyfraud by the British Museum" (to describe
>> > the actions of some other organisation) and link to a discussion ([5] on
>> > your list) where you used the phrase "fraudulent copyright claim"
>> > twice,there is no other reasonable interpretation of your words than to
>> > understand that you are accusing the BM of fraudulent conduct.  That is
>> not
>> > a sensible basis for a serious discussion and I for one would not waste
>> my
>> > rime getting involved with it: indeed I do not support your accusation in
>> > the slightest.
>> >
>> > You state that as a charity the BM "must avoid copyfraud in any
>> > circumstances".
>> > Since you are using that word to cover, broadly speaking, any action to
>> > claim or protect intellectual property rights that you don't like, they
>> > clearly do not have any duty to behave exactly as you personally might
>> > happen to prefer.  The question of harmonising intellectual property
>> rights
>> > across various jurisdictions, the interaction between ownership of
>> physical
>> > objects and their artisitic and photographic representations, the legal
>> > duties of charity trustees to achieve their charitable aims and their
>> duty
>> > to maintain their ability to execute those aims, and all the other
>> elements
>> > of this discussion deserve more than a causally dismissive "I'm not going
>> > to write an essay".  If you can't be bothered to explain your position, I
>> > can't be bothered to support it.
>> >
>> > If you really think your attitude of "I'm right, everyone else is wrong,
>> > and I'm not going to bother to be polite to people who don't do what I
>> want
>> > the instant I demand it" is going to achieve anything practical, then I
>> am
>> > not going to waste my time helping you to waste the time of people who
>> have
>> > a job to do, which is rather more demanding, rather more worthwhile and
>> > rather less well paid than you choose to believe.
>>
>> Nobody believes that claiming copyright on 2,000 year old works is
>> something that a British National Institution would want to defend.
>> The issue is expressed in that one sentence, an essay is really not
>> needed to explain it. So "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" does not
>> describe what this is about.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Fae
>>
>> > "Rogol"
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Rogol, thanks for your interest. I do not understand your reading
>> >> of my words. However when I wrote "the restrictions are
>> >> shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud" or "apparent ignorance over
>> >> copyright", neither can be interpreted as an accusation of fraudulent
>> >> conduct by anyone. If there is confusion about the word, I suggest
>> >> reading the Wikipedia article, it's quite interesting.[1]
>> >>
>> >> As for a reasoned case, I found the board level approved words on the
>> >> official website, describing why the British Museum exists (see my
>> >> original email), to be adequate enough to expect that their policies
>> >> and their implementation of policy must avoid copyfraud in any
>> >> circumstances. I'm not going to write an essay about something this
>> >> obvious, nor do I expect to have to doublethink myself into giving
>> >> positive reasons for a notice on an ancient artefact that claims it is
>> >> under copyright, just to potentially make a few middle-managers in the
>> >> administration of the two museums involved feel good about themselves.
>> >> They are probably paid well enough not to worry about my plain words,
>> >> or my simple-minded approach, failing to be politically diplomatic.
>> >>
>> >> As previously stated, I'd be only too happy for the BM or the THM to
>> >> get in touch. I'm even happy to have a chat over the phone as part of
>> >> taking steps to ensure that this exhibition is fixed, and cannot
>> >> reoccur in the display of future loans.
>> >>
>> >> Links
>> >> 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Fae
>> >> --
>> >> Fae
>> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+
>> >> http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
>> >>
>> >> On 28 Jul 2017 19:09, "Rogol Domedonfors" <domedonf...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Fae,
>> >> >
>> >> > I do know some people at the BM but I'm not going to waste their or my
>> >> time
>> >> > on claims that start off by accusing them of "fraudlent" conduct and
>> >> finish
>> >> > with demands that they immediately reverse their policies, just
>> because
>> >> you
>> >> > say so.  If you were able to put together a reasoned case which showed
>> >> that
>> >> > you were aware of the positive and negative sides of their and your
>> >> > positions, I might reconsider -- but to be honest, I'm not going to.
>> >> >
>> >> > "Rogol"
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> 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-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>> --
>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to