To go back to my original point, rather than off on a tangent about something that happened many years ago:
I think it's really important we reach out to the IWM through WMUK's professional networks, with face-to-face meetings, and would really support WMUK if they chose to do that. I think to do so would be more productive than a grassroots campaign in this instance. On 28 July 2017 at 20:32, Richard Symonds <[email protected]> wrote: > First: I know me and you haven't got on very well in the past Fae, so I > want to underline that this email is meant in the friendliest way possible. > I really appreciate the work you do on Commons, and am deeply struck by the > passion with which you approach our shared goal. We're both on the same > team - working for free knowledge. > > That said, there's a bit of criticism - constructive, I hope. I'm not sure > if further emails like the ones at https://commons.wikimedia. > org/wiki/User:F%C3%A6/email/IWM would be very helpful - they didn't work > at the time, and clearly haven't worked in the past four years, despite > your tweeting. The issue the IWM had in that case was that they didn't > agree with you that it was copyfraud. The solution would be a sit-down talk > between professionals, that is as you say, "invest some resources into > changing their minds". > > I remember trying this with the IWM in 2013 - at the time, I was talking > to the institution about the WW1 centenary, which they were the driving > force behind. They were happy to talk, and extremely friendly, and we had > several meetings with them. However, they had issues with the emails that > you were sending to them, which they saw as rude, passive-aggressive, and > generally unhelpful. The institution didn't see them as polite > correspondence, and it made them reticent to work with Wikipedia because > they didn't feel like they could be a part of a community that spoke to > people like that. I know that to you the emails were professional and to > the point, and objectively correct. But to them it came across as > unprofessional, and that it happened during the run-up to the WWI centenary > made it very difficult for Wikipedia to get involved in the commemorations > in any more than a passive capacity. You redoubled your efforts after you > saw the IWM refusing to change, but sometimes, our passion for change - for > righting the wrongs in the world - makes us seem like fanatics to > middle-managers in cultural institutions. This pushed them away, and made > it harder for them to understand our point of view. > > The solution here is, as you say, friendly and professional discussions - > social media campaigns about it, as well as using words like "copyfraud" > (which invoke thoughts of criminality in the minds of the reader), are > counterproductive. We need to be professional and approachable, engendering > change through example, and although social media campaigns and shaming > work sometimes (and are legitimate ways of forcing change on an old > institution), we have to be careful not to go to it as a first option, > especially when our strength in WMUK is our professional connections > throughout the third sector and "GLAM" world. > > On 28 July 2017 at 18:16, Fæ <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 28 July 2017 at 17:18, John Byrne <[email protected]> wrote: >> > The BM still in effect operates a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on >> > photography - see >> > [http://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/2011-11-14%20Visitor%20Reg >> ulations%20FINAL.pdf >> > section 8.1] here: "8.1 Except where indicated by notices, you are >> permitted >> > to use hand-held cameras (including mobile phones) with flash bulbs or >> flash >> > units, and audio and film recording equipment not requiring a stand. >> You may >> > use your photographs, film and audio recordings only for your own >> private >> > and non-commercial purposes." The same goes for the images on their >> website. >> > >> > But as I think Fae knows, they have in the past kindly facilitated >> > back-stage photography of objects by Wikipedians, knowing the images >> will be >> > uploaded to Commons. Matthew Cock, our former main contact left some >> years >> > ago. Most "policy" matters are hard to change at the BM because of the >> size >> > of the organization. Everything "would have to go to the Trustees" - an >> > appalling vista for middle management. >> > >> > No doubt the THM is trying to enforce these standard terms, reflected >> in the >> > loan agreement, more strictly than the BM itself does. I'm not sure >> there's >> > much point in going to or after them. >> > >> > One day their main policy will improve, but they are not easy to >> pressure - >> > in practice things work ok as it is, normally. >> > >> > John >> >> Thanks John, I recall us having meetings with BM folks. It was >> illuminating hearing how things work from the inside. Within my >> personal network I have some insight into the BM specifically, and >> other large academic related institutions. In general we get a >> positive response from curators and researchers who may plan an >> exhibition, in fact their issues with our open projects are spot on >> and match our own concerns. But this is a very separate world from the >> operations and marketing middle management who make the final >> decisions on loan policies and public exhibition standards. >> >> From the perspective of open knowledge advocates, after meetings and >> presentations I have had curators shake my hand and thank me for >> saying things they cannot. One of the great benefits of having unpaid >> volunteers like us knocking around with no "professional" affiliation >> with the institutions that may manage the content we are passionate >> about, is that we can say obvious things, without worrying too much >> about diplomacy or PR. >> >> Despite being criticised for making waves every now and then, it's >> those personal thanks for doing what I do that will encourage me to >> call unambiguous copyfraud, copyfraud, whenever I see it. >> >> If anyone wants to see my previous efforts trying politely talking to >> IP lawyers representing an institution that simply does not get it, >> they can take a look at my correspondence with the Imperial War >> Museum.[1] It's four years since I very politely and clearly gave them >> the facts about their continued copyfraud, and they have not lifted a >> finger to correct it. I guess they are too big to care about my tweets >> that continue to point out this problem,[2] however it would be great >> if WMUK wanted to invest some resources into changing their minds; in >> line with our shared vision of open knowledge and free access to >> public content. >> >> Links >> 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/email/IWM IWM emails. >> 2. https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/890954001990201346 example tweet >> on copyfraud from earlier today. >> >> Cheers, >> Fae >> -- >> [email protected] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia UK mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk > > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
