On 14 September 2017 at 08:21, Nick Poole <nick.po...@cilip.org.uk> wrote: > Indeed, and congratulations to Lucy and the team on securing this progress > with Tullie House. I do think it is important to acknowledge progress as > much as it is to keep pushing for better practice.
Yes, Lucy's reaching out worked and I'm grateful for that effort. However, as far as I'm aware, nothing was planned, and indeed nothing has happened for a few years now, to address institutional copyfraud in the UK, despite some of the most globally famous cases occurring in this country, such as the National Portrait Gallery.[1] Shamefully, even standard texts that professionals refer to for UK IP law, incorrectly treat "sweat of the brow" as being definitive, rather than it being legally untested and hypothetical. > With this in mind, are we content that we are doing everything we can as a > community to make it easier for museums to do the right thing than to > default to a risk-averse legacy practice? With regard to community, the previous UK GLAM-wiki network that started the global movement around the time I was the UK national GLAM coordinator has gradually evaporated, but has left behind assets like the Outreach wiki. The GLAM community is gradually becoming directed by the WMF, which considering recent events with some chapters, I think is actually a good thing both in terms of funding, longevity and reputation. If you are looking for case studies and material to provide to institutions then get in touch with Sadads[2], though as the chapter has produced materials and reports in the past, including advice for institutions wanting to provide better open access, the starting point should be the CEO reviewing existing assets with her staff. Without volunteers prepared to invest weeks of their time creating more materials and planning meetings with GLAMs, WMUK must rely on its full time staff to do most of this work. If educating or simply prompting GLAMs on their open access strategies by truly managing relationships, rather than just sending out leaflets, is not in the coming annual plan, perhaps the WMUK trustees should have a chat with the CEO about how to move this forward and for the chapter to become seen as a reliable institution to turn to for advice, rather than leaving it to the tertiary education bodies which have been leading UK improvements to, and interpretation of, Open Access or avoiding copyfraud. Museums/GLAMs are going to stay risk averse with their collections. If we presume this will stay true for the foreseeable future, then "risk averse" needs to include avoiding the reputational risk of copyfraud as a more urgent issue than saving some money by never bothering correctly to assess the copyright status of media and artefacts. If we take two obvious case studies familiar to WMUK: (A) The British Museum is a leader in open access, making its main database open to the public online several years ago and supporting the Portable Antiquities Scheme database (PAS) which has an excellent licensing strategy for content and photographs, so that reuse on our projects is actually encouraged.[3] The main database has understandable licensing restrictions, primarily because artefact photographs and catalogue text were produced long before current expectations for open licensing existed. Right now is an excellent time for WMUK to refresh its contacts at the BM as there is an opportunity to influence planned changes to the way this works. The Tullie House case is a good starting point to ensure that the BM changes its loan procedures to never have restrictions on photography for ancient artefacts that cannot be damaged by being photographed, and ensure than no receiving institution does anything which even looks like copyfraud. (B) The Imperial War museum the best case study of how not to do it in the UK. In the last two years the IWM has systematically watermarked all their 500,000+ online images and videos, even though the vast majority of their collection is public domain. Their archive was created by the Government and has the single purpose of being held in trust for the benefit of the public, so their odd approach of damaging the images with watermarks and falsely claiming all media as being their commercial copyright, even public domain media taken from other archives, to ensure that they can cash in and use the archive as a retail outlet, is not just bizarre, but blatant and deliberate copyfraud. Yes, they have been a hobby-horse of mine for a few years now, but we have no better counter-example and their approach has actually got worse in the last 4 years. I doubt their current management team care much about anyone making public statements about their copyfraud, so the only hope of changing their misuse of public domain material would be to foster contacts on the IWM board of trustees. As an independent volunteer I'm free to write to the trustees to make a 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 >>> 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. > > > > > > -- > > Lucy Crompton-Reid > > Chief Executive > > Wikimedia UK _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
