[Wikimediauk-l] British Museum makes 1.9m images available under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

That it's a non-commercial licence is really disappointing, but that's still a little better than nothing… https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2020/04/28/british-museum-makes-1-9-million-images-available-for-free/ The British Museum has revamped its online collections database, making over 1.9 mill

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] British Museum makes 1.9m images available under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Thanks Owen! The Natural History Museum did this with their Data Portal as they were building it. Thanks to Andy Mabbet for letting us know that high-res images of their specimens are now being uploaded on Commons

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimediauk-l Digest, Vol 177, Issue 8

attachment was scrubbed... URL: < https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/attachments/20200429/daee4566/attachment-0001.html> -- Message: 2 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 12:09:30

[Wikimediauk-l] Covid-19 articles and licensing

While we're on the topic of restrictive licensing, I have some comments to make about Covid-19 literature, and what to do about it.In the familiar good news, bad news pattern, major medical publishers are allowing pandemic-related articles to be read online, even though their copyright status woul

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimediauk-l Digest, Vol 177, Issue 8

es/by-nc-sa/4.0/>">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/> > > https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ . Users no > > longer need to register to use these photographs, and can now > > download them > > directly from the British

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimediauk-l Digest, Vol 177, Issue 8

Public domain for 2D works applies for old 2D artefacts, like manuscripts or flat decorated objects. The examples I've seen include objects like 15th C. drawings, which the claim of "copyright of the Trustees" may be safely ignored as there is no new creativity in the likely automated scans being m

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] British Museum makes 1.9m images available under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 11:43, Owen Blacker wrote: > > That it's a non-commercial licence is really disappointing, but that's still > a little better than nothing… With the emphasis on the "little". There are two things wrong with this, which we as a movement (and individually) need to challenge;

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] British Museum makes 1.9m images available under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

This is a difficult problem to solve. Remember that the WMUK was talking with the British Museum way back in 2009/2010, which led to the first Wikipedian in Residence. That they are now using a CC licence is a good step forward, however I suspect the ’NC’ difficulty is related to the existence o

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimediauk-l Digest, Vol 177, Issue 8

I do indeed recall the previous discussions, and I'm as opposed as anyone to the practice of public custodians of our heritage attempting to claim a fresh copyright for their reproductions of public domain art. Although Bridgeman v Corel is highly influential for the USA, we must be aware that