[Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

Fæ
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
--
[hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Andy Mabbett-2
"On 28 July 2017 at 13:02, Fæ <[hidden email]> 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-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Jean-Philippe Béland
Maybe I misunderstand what you wrote, but from what I read they do not
claim copyright over the objects. They only tell you "do not take pictures
of it". Even if an object is in the public domain, the actual physical
object is still their property and they can do whatever they want with it,
it does not have to be displayed and they don't have to allow photographs
of it even if it is exposed. However, if such photographs str taken, they
cannot restrict their distribution. This is not a case of "copyfraud" from
that point of view.

JP

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> "On 28 July 2017 at 13:02, Fæ <[hidden email]> 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-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--

Jean-Philippe Béland

[image: Wikimedia Canada] Vice-président — Wikimédia Canada
<https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=fr>, chapitre national
soutenant Wikipédia
Vice president — Wikimedia Canada
<https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=en>, national chapter
supporting Wikipedia
535 avenue Viger Est, Montréal (Québec)  H2L 2P3,[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Jean-Philippe Béland
Exposed = exhibited. My French is taking over.

JP


On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Jean-Philippe Béland <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> Maybe I misunderstand what you wrote, but from what I read they do not
> claim copyright over the objects. They only tell you "do not take pictures
> of it". Even if an object is in the public domain, the actual physical
> object is still their property and they can do whatever they want with it,
> it does not have to be displayed and they don't have to allow photographs
> of it even if it is exposed. However, if such photographs str taken, they
> cannot restrict their distribution. This is not a case of "copyfraud" from
> that point of view.
>
> JP
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> "On 28 July 2017 at 13:02, Fæ <[hidden email]> 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-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jean-Philippe Béland
>
> [image: Wikimedia Canada] Vice-président — Wikimédia Canada
> <https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=fr>, chapitre national
> soutenant Wikipédia
> Vice president — Wikimedia Canada
> <https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=en>, national chapter
> supporting Wikipedia
> 535 avenue Viger Est, Montréal (Québec)  H2L 2P3,[hidden email]
>



--

Jean-Philippe Béland

[image: Wikimedia Canada] Vice-président — Wikimédia Canada
<https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=fr>, chapitre national
soutenant Wikipédia
Vice president — Wikimedia Canada
<https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=en>, national chapter
supporting Wikipedia
535 avenue Viger Est, Montréal (Québec)  H2L 2P3,[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Andy Mabbett-2
In reply to this post by Jean-Philippe Béland
On 28 July 2017 at 13:28, Jean-Philippe Béland <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Maybe I misunderstand what you wrote, but from what I read they do not
> claim copyright over the objects. They only tell you "do not take pictures
> of it". Even if an object is in the public domain, the actual physical
> object is still their property and they can do whatever they want with it,
> it does not have to be displayed and they don't have to allow photographs
> of it even if it is exposed. However, if such photographs str taken, they
> cannot restrict their distribution. This is not a case of "copyfraud" from
> that point of view.

If you view the images to which Fae linked, the objects are clearly
labelled "protected by copyright". This has no basis in UK law.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Jean-Philippe Béland
Ok sorry, I could only read the text of the email, I can't open the images
from here right now, my bad.

JP


On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 28 July 2017 at 13:28, Jean-Philippe Béland <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Maybe I misunderstand what you wrote, but from what I read they do not
> > claim copyright over the objects. They only tell you "do not take
> pictures
> > of it". Even if an object is in the public domain, the actual physical
> > object is still their property and they can do whatever they want with
> it,
> > it does not have to be displayed and they don't have to allow photographs
> > of it even if it is exposed. However, if such photographs str taken, they
> > cannot restrict their distribution. This is not a case of "copyfraud"
> from
> > that point of view.
>
> If you view the images to which Fae linked, the objects are clearly
> labelled "protected by copyright". This has no basis in UK law.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--

Jean-Philippe Béland

[image: Wikimedia Canada] Vice-président — Wikimédia Canada
<https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=fr>, chapitre national
soutenant Wikipédia
Vice president — Wikimedia Canada
<https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=en>, national chapter
supporting Wikipedia
535 avenue Viger Est, Montréal (Québec)  H2L 2P3,[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Rogol Domedonfors
In reply to this post by Fæ
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 <[hidden email]> 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
> --
> [hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Fæ
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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> > --
> > [hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

Chris Keating-2
In reply to this post by Fæ
Forwarding on the worryingly sensible discussion of this "copyfraud"
from the wikimediauk-l mailing list.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Deryck Chan <[hidden email]>
Date: Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list <[hidden email]>


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 <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> > 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" <[hidden email]> 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
>> >> --
>> >> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> >> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> > WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> > WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Rogol Domedonfors
In reply to this post by Fæ
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.

"Rogol"



On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Fæ <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> > > --
> > > [hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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

--
[hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Rogol Domedonfors
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 28 July 2017 at 21:29, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> >> > > --
> >> > > [hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> --
> [hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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



--
[hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by Rogol Domedonfors
I kind of am inclined to agree with Rogol. Let's try pointing it out nicely
first. There's a decent chance they'll say "Oops! Someone got carried away
with the stickers", and it's fixed just that easy.

If they actually do try to claim copyright, then there's something tangible
to criticize. But there's no harm in just telling them and seeing how they
respond before making a big public spectacle.

Todd

On Jul 28, 2017 2:49 PM, "Rogol Domedonfors" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On 28 July 2017 at 21:29, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > [hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > --
> > [hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Fæ
On 28 July 2017 at 21:59, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

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


If you write a post containing the word "fraud" over and over, people
are going to assume you are accusing someone of fraud.

Particularly when you use a word like "copyfraud" which was
specifically coined to carry the emotional freight of the concept of
fraud.

If you don't realise this, you may not be the best person to be
conducting public relations on this matter.


- d.

_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Rogol Domedonfors
In reply to this post by Fæ
Fae

Since I pointed out that your posting
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=253364582&oldid=253360811
linked to in your first posting on the subject used that word, your latest
email is clearly incorrect, and I think that terminates the discussion as
far as I'm concerned.

"Rogol"

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 28 July 2017 at 21:29, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]>
> >> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> >> >> > > --
> >> >> > > [hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
> >> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> >> --
> >> [hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> [hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

geni
In reply to this post by Fæ
On 28 July 2017 at 21:36, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Nobody believes that claiming copyright on 2,000 year old works


And this is where your failure to understand English and Welsh law and
the history of artifact handling become a problem.

Your mistake is in assuming the only work here is from the 2000 year
old sculptor and bronze worker. This is of course not the case. The
reality is both items will have been subject to a certain degree of
cleaning and "restoration" (you don't give British museum catalogue
numbers so I can't look up exactly what). This is pretty common for
any ah "headline" item that didn't go straight from the dig to a
museum. Victorian collectors wanted complete statues for their
collection and even today things can get a lot of work done to them
(the Crosby Garrett Helmet for example).

The Roman statue presumably entered the UK pre-1972 (if it didn't we
have bigger concerns than copyright) which means there is a good
chance it is from the imaginative restoration era. Has the restorer
been dead for 70 years? I don't know and I don't think you do.

The jug won't have come out of the ground looking like that. Has
enough work been done to qualify for copyright or is it old enough for
life+70 to have expired? I don't know. Do you?


--
geni

_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Fæ
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
David,

Great to hear from you. A correction, as you seem to misunderstand who
I am. I am not conducting public relations. I am not paid for public
relations. I am simply an unpaid volunteer Wikimedian and I do not see
why I should apologize for that fact. The Wikimedia community is
supposed to be able to rely on this list to raise and discuss
organization issues, and I'm writing as a member of the community.

The term "copyfraud" is used standardly within the Wikimedia community
to describe false claims of copyright by institutions, there is no
special reason to avoid the word when it's a museum that is doing it.

I expect to be able to write about issues for the Wikimedia community
using language that we use in our community. I do not expect me, or
anyone else, to have their free speech here limited to language that
will fly well within WMF marketing or that will be diplomatic and
unchallenging for the British Library's public relations department.
If we see blatant copyfraud, the community should be free to call it
what it is.

Thanks,
Fae

On 28 July 2017 at 22:03, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 28 July 2017 at 21:59, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Rogol, it's worth repeating that the only one here talking about
>> fraudulent conduct is yourself.
>
>
> If you write a post containing the word "fraud" over and over, people
> are going to assume you are accusing someone of fraud.
>
> Particularly when you use a word like "copyfraud" which was
> specifically coined to carry the emotional freight of the concept of
> fraud.
>
> If you don't realise this, you may not be the best person to be
> conducting public relations on this matter.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
[hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Fæ
In reply to this post by geni
Hi Geni,

Thanks for your feedback on copyright. Rather than my personal failure
or mistake, I find the argument that either simple or faithful
restoration work on an ancient artefact will mean it creates new
copyright for the museum unlikely, based on the absence of any
evidence I have seen on many Commons deletion requests that a similar
case has ever gone to court, whether in England, Wales or elsewhere.
In fact I do not recall any museum in the UK ever claiming copyright
in this way on a restored physical ancient artefact. The two artefacts
are ancient artefacts, not recent models or excessively creatively
restored, as far as I could tell by looking closely at them. The
massive hole in the jug, which you can see very obviously in photo I
took, is a bit of a giveaway that restoration has not been excessive.
If you have any alternative evidence, it would be great to share it.

If you take this further, it would be best to open up community
discussion on Commons. It would help if you could can pin down the
relevant parts of the copyright act, or even better provide some
documented cases, rather than making hypothecated assertions. The best
place to do that is in the deletion requests on the two photographs
that were opened yesterday. The links are:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:British_Museum_2nd_century_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:British_Museum_Fortuna_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg

As for the British Museum reference numbers, this was not an oversight
on my part. No references were quoted anywhere in the exhibition, nor
the exhibition guide, nor did a detailed search on the British Museum
database provide any more information about these two artefacts. I
have no idea why. I do have photographs of the descriptive information
panels against the artefacts, but as these may be copyrighted they are
not suitable for Commons. If anyone wants those photographs to help
research the artefacts further, I would be happy to email them.

Thanks,
Fae

On 29 July 2017 at 02:12, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 28 July 2017 at 21:36, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Nobody believes that claiming copyright on 2,000 year old works
>
>
> And this is where your failure to understand English and Welsh law and
> the history of artifact handling become a problem.
>
> Your mistake is in assuming the only work here is from the 2000 year
> old sculptor and bronze worker. This is of course not the case. The
> reality is both items will have been subject to a certain degree of
> cleaning and "restoration" (you don't give British museum catalogue
> numbers so I can't look up exactly what). This is pretty common for
> any ah "headline" item that didn't go straight from the dig to a
> museum. Victorian collectors wanted complete statues for their
> collection and even today things can get a lot of work done to them
> (the Crosby Garrett Helmet for example).
>
> The Roman statue presumably entered the UK pre-1972 (if it didn't we
> have bigger concerns than copyright) which means there is a good
> chance it is from the imaginative restoration era. Has the restorer
> been dead for 70 years? I don't know and I don't think you do.
>
> The jug won't have come out of the ground looking like that. Has
> enough work been done to qualify for copyright or is it old enough for
> life+70 to have expired? I don't know. Do you?
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
[hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Gordon Joly
In reply to this post by geni
On 29/07/17 02:12, geni wrote:
> Your mistake is in assuming the only work here is from the 2000 year
> old sculptor and bronze worker.


Cf. The Cutty Sark and Knosos?

Gordo


_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12