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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 28 July 2017 at 21:29, Rogol Domedonfors <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >> >> > > -- >> >> > > [email protected] 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: [email protected] >> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> >> <mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> >> >> -- >> [email protected] 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: [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> -- [email protected] 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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
