I think one of the biggest misunderstandings is that museums etc think they *can't* sell merchandise if they don't own copyright.
One of the things WMUK could help with when talking to institutions is explaining that they can still put the photo on a mug or a postcard in the gift shop. (And if they host Wikipedians for a day they'll probably sell some! I always buy something in a museum gift shop just to support the museum.) Harry On Thu, 4 Jan 2024, 11:15 Lucy Crompton-Reid, < [email protected]> wrote: > Completely agree Jonathan. Let's hope that your more positive scenario is > the one that happens - it's certainly what we (and I know many others, > including your good self) advocate to the sector. Best, Lucy > > On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 11:10, WereSpielChequers < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Re: "It is certainly strange to me that some cultural organisations >> pursue image licensing as a loss making venture that also borders on >> copyfraud..." >> >> I'm hoping that museums will still want to spend money on digitising >> their content. But we need to be realistic, if they can't subsidise that by >> getting at least some of the money back from image licensing, they may do >> less of it. >> >> Of course rumour has it that some institutions weren't even getting as >> much from image licencing as it cost them to market and sell those images. >> My hope is that fewer institutions will think of digitisation in terms of >> fundraising and more in terms of fulfilling their mission of preserving and >> recording their collection and making their collections available to all. >> >> But my fear is that there will be more items that can only be seen if >> visited and the only available images are photos of the painting on mugs >> and jigsaws from the museum shop. >> >> Jonathan >> >> >> >> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 at 14:39, Andy Mabbett <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 at 09:39, Deryck Chan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > I'm slightly confused by the article. It refers to THJ vs Sheridan >>> (2023) >>> > but that ruling was about software-generated graphs and said nothing >>> > about reproducing out-of-copyright content? >>> >>> It doesn't need to. It clarifies the conditions under which a >>> copyright is created; the subject matter is immaterial. >>> >>> See paragraphs 14-16 ("The Law"), in particular: >>> >>> "What is required [for copyright to exist] is that the author was able >>> to express their creative abilities in the production of the work by >>> making free and creative choices so as to stamp the work created with >>> their >>> personal touch [...] This criterion is not satisfied where the content >>> of the work is dictated by technical considerations, rules or other >>> constraints which leave no room for creative freedom" >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia UK mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >>> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia UK mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk > > > > -- > Lucy Crompton-Reid > Chief Executive > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
