Hello GerardM, I follow you on the multilingual issue. Some of the manyfold copyright symbols I quoted in my previous message might apply to the annotating text, and let alive creative text writers have the possibility to sell their text for money. But that should not allow them to add a copyright symbol on a photograph taken before 1906 by somebody else.
The topic raised in this discussion is not every GLAM. It is those GLAM paid with the taxpayer's money which are part of the government administration. I think the government should respect scrupulously what the lawmaker is saying in the copyright law concerning Public Domain. The Wikimedia Foundation and Chapters should not provide help to civil servants wanting to have more than what the lawmaker allows them to have. If the French Chapter capitulates in front of the civil servant lobby, then the French Chapter loses any kind of representativity of the public's interest. Ultimately, the French Chapter would lose the public's confidence. 2009/9/25, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>: > Hoi, > The world is not so simple. When we accept material from a GLAM in a low > resolution, we should be happy with what we get. When a GLAM considers this > an acceptance that this material is copyrightable they are wrong. When we > accept material we get it with annotations, we get it with all the aspects > that make this material worthwhile. > > Our Commons material is useless if it was not for our categories, the > annotations of the material that we store. This is in my opinion the most > important part of the picture because this is what gives our material > relevance and makes it possible to find it. This is at the same time the > biggest problem of Commons. You can only find things when you know your > English. > Thanks, > GerardM _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
