Hi Fae, The reuse seems to be by the British Library, not the British Museum, here. Asking them for £400 seems a bit odd/steep (https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/1293503130987122688).
Thanks, Mike > On 12 Aug 2020, at 13:05, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Lucy, > > It's just over 3 months ago that your offer to talk with the British > Museum about claiming copyright over public domain images, and > consequently charging academics and other reusers large fees to use > images which should be free to the public. Has there been any progress > and what came of the plan to discuss this topic at the recent AGM? > > As a further reference case study of the British Museum continuing > using what Wikimedians call "license laundering"[0], this week they > have claimed all rights reserved for my own photograph released on > Wikimedia Commons a decade ago to support Wikipedia editathons working > with the Museum, as CC-BY-SA.[1][2] The BM has removed EXIF data, and > not attempted to apply a simple attribution, or perhaps fail to > understand what is required to respect moral rights. A remarkable > failure considering the museum and their online presence sets the > standard for many other UK GLAM institutions. > > Thanks, > Fae > > Links > 0. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:License_laundering > 1. > https://web.archive.org/web/20200812105445/https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2020/08/jewels-make-the-virgin-queen.html > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Gold_Cup_lid.jpg > > -- > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > > ---- > On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 16:20, Lucy Crompton-Reid > <lucy.crompton-r...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: >> >> Dear all >> >> >> As a number of people have noted already, it is indeed disappointing that >> the British Museum has released these images under a non commercial licence, >> given the obvious restrictions to people actually accessing and using them. >> Whilst staff at Wikimedia UK have many partnerships within the cultural >> sector, including larger institutions, the BM is not currently one of them. >> However I will get in touch with them and point out the issues with the >> licence they’ve chosen. If anyone has any contacts at the Museum they would >> be able to share with me that would be very helpful - and of course, you are >> also welcome to lobby them as individuals. >> >> >> I’m not sure that I quite agree with the characterisation of Wikimedia UK as >> “advocating for a position at variance with that of the wider movement when >> it comes to claiming non commercial copyright on out of copyright material”. >> Indeed, in a talk I gave at a Westminster Media Forum policy event on the EU >> copyright directive last year, I said: >> >> >> “Access to and re-use of centuries old paintings, part of our cultural >> heritage, is being increasingly restricted by an array of laws and in-house >> rules within cultural institutions aiming to maintain control of their >> digital copies. This causes many classical works, for instance, to be >> unavailable to the public online, despite them being part of the public >> domain. >> >> >> Part of the social balance under copyright and related rights is that at >> some point the exclusive economic rights expire and the works become part of >> our shared cultural heritage. This makes up a large portion of the public >> domain and ensures wide access to our culture and the freedom to create and >> innovate. Unfortunately, in the past decades we have seen increasing >> attempts to restrict our cultural heritage by claiming copyright on public >> domain works, or by establishing new rights on exact digital copies of old >> works. These practices complicate and sometimes prevent the digitisation of >> and digital access to our culture. >> >> >> The [EU copyright] Directive therefore provides for a safeguard of public >> domain works. We must make sure no new rights are applied to digital copies >> of artworks whose copyright has expired. This includes both no copyright >> term extension for such rules and no related rights. The current situation >> in the UK on this is quite inconclusive, with works that would be considered >> to be public domain under US law potentially subject to copyright under UK >> law. Indeed the courts in the UK traditionally applied a very low test for >> photographic originality, based on the "skill and labour" required to >> capture the image. In the IPO’s updated copyright advice notice in 2015, it >> acknowledges that there is a degree of uncertainty regarding whether >> copyright can exist in digitised copies of older images for which copyright >> has expired. However it also states that according to the Court of Justice >> of the European Union, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is >> original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. >> This higher standard should be unequivocally applied to UK cultural heritage >> institutions, who might be inadvertently engaging in copyfraud.” >> >> >> Previously, at a ministerial roundtable on the directive, I raised this very >> point with the Minister (at the time), who seemed completely unaware of the >> practice of copyrighting digital reproductions of public domain works, and >> remarked that this was certainly “outside of the spirit” of existing law and >> proposed legislation. Both of those policy interventions point to our >> general approach towards non-commercial licenses and to issues around >> copyfraud. >> >> >> However it’s true that we do, as a chapter, work with a broad range of >> institutions, some of whom claim non commercial copyright on out of >> copyright material. We challenge this where we see it, albeit usually >> through meetings and discussions, rather than in public fora. Indeed, much >> of our work with the cultural sector involves this kind of internal >> advocacy, and we can see the impact of this in the institutions who go on to >> change their policy and practice and release a substantial amount of content >> onto open licences. We also continue to talk to grantmaking organisations to >> encourage them to move away from non commercial licences for themselves and >> their grantees - although again, we primarily do this in >> collaboration/discussion rather than on a public forum. It’s probably fair >> to say we take a carrot, rather than a stick, approach on this - but I think >> that’s a question of tactics, rather than of policy. >> >> >> Having said all of that, I don’t want to shut down debate and would be very >> happy for there to be questions and discussions on this at our next AGM >> (which is indeed going to be online, for reasons that are clearly outside of >> our control). As a staff team we have recently started planning this event, >> which is going to be on Saturday 18th July, and have already started >> thinking about how we ensure the Q&A part of the day is as productive and >> inclusive as possible, particularly given the unusual set up. >> >> >> To come back more specifically to the BM issue, I will follow this up next >> week. I think it will be relatively easy for me to find someone to talk to >> there but as I say, if anyone does have an existing contact/relationship at >> the museum I would be very pleased to hear from you. >> >> >> All best wishes >> >> Lucy >> >> >> >> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 12:48, Harry Mitchell <hjmw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I agree that it's only a matter of time before somebody does it but, as >>> with the NPG a few years ago, the BM are likely to be quite upset if we >>> can't get them to see it from our point of view. If anyone has any relevant >>> contacts it might be worth reaching out. It could be that they don't fully >>> understand the difference between CC-By-SA and CC-By-NC and how the latter >>> prevents use on Wikipedia. On the other hand, it could be that they're >>> claiming copyright based on the "sweat of brow" doctrine, which hasn't been >>> fully tested in British courts. >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:21 PM WereSpielChequers >>> <werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Andy makes some important points. >>>> >>>> We know that even if editors in the UK respect what the British Museum is >>>> doing and don't upload those images to Commons or Wikipedia; where they >>>> are public domain images under US law, it is just a matter of time before >>>> someone in the movement, anywhere in the world, uploads any of those >>>> British Museum images that are of old two D objects to Commons as Public >>>> Domain images that can be used without attribution to the photographer or >>>> the institution. >>>> >>>> Of course large parts of the British Museum collection would involve >>>> images of three d objects. In those case we can't use the BM images, but >>>> outside of lockdown people can either go there and take photos, or if you >>>> can't get yourself to the British Museum with a camera, make a request >>>> via the London Meetup, and if the object is on display we can get results >>>> such as at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_altarpiece_(WB.232) >>>> >>>> >>>> The chapter remains in the awkward position of liaising with institutions >>>> that regard it as acceptable to claim a non commercial copyright on out >>>> of copyright material, and of in effect advocating for a position at >>>> variance with that of the wider movement. >>>> >>>> One option that the chapter could consider would be to shift policy and >>>> instead start to diplomatically lobby UK Museum's to, as Andy put it, stop >>>> " trying to appropriate rights that belong to us all." Perhaps those on >>>> this list who are still members of the chapter might consider raising this >>>> for a debate at the next AGM? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Jonathan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 21:06, Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 11:43, Owen Blacker <o...@blacker.me.uk> 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; at >>>>> very reasonable opportunity. >>>>> >>>>> Firstly, there's the way they're spending public money making non-free >>>>> original content. we need to persuade GLAMs - and lobby funders - that >>>>> such material should be freely reusable. >>>>> >>>>> But far more troubling is the attempt to claim copyright in works >>>>> whose copyright - if the work didn't pre-date copyright completely - >>>>> expired decades or centuries ago. The latter means, in effect that >>>>> they are trying to appropriate rights that belong to us all. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Andy Mabbett >>>>> @pigsonthewing >>>>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk >> -- >> Lucy Crompton-Reid >> Chief Executive >> Wikimedia UK >> +44 (0) 203 372 0762 >> >> Wikimedia UK is the national chapter for the global Wikimedia open knowledge >> movement, and a registered charity. We rely on donations from individuals to >> support our work to make knowledge open for all. Have you considered >> supporting Wikimedia? https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk >> >> Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. >> 6741827 >> Registered Charity No.1144513 >> Registered Office Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London >> SE1 0NZ >> >> The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate >> Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent >> non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility >> for its contents. >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia UK mailing list >> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
