Why just WM-fr surely other chapters could also use the Corbis case
On 8 March 2011 14:15, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 March 2011 05:55, Orionist
<orion.ist(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think that the WMF can still play some part
here, and that is the so
called "spreading awareness". I think that bringing up the issue of orphaned
works could win us points with the GLAM community, and could also be good PR
for us too: "The Wikimedia Foundation calls on lawmakers to save world
heritage", "The Wikimedia Foundation spearheads attempt to save 50 years of
world history" or similar titles would be great for our image. This issue
can also be used to point out why we need to promote free content, why we
need better copyright laws, why corporations active in fields of culture
should assume more responsibility etc. It's relevant in so many ways.
+1 on that. However...
The Wikimedia Foundation has specifically decided (someone correct me if I
have misunderstood) that it is not going to get involved in political
lobbying unless it is absolutely necessary (e.g. if there was a threat to
the WMF's ability to host without being legally liable for individual
contributions, in which case Google etc. would be involved too). However,
advocacy does fall very much within the scope of the Chapters' remit.
Defending the user's perspective in legislative/popular debates around the
world is definitely a field that, though not sexy or fast-moving, the
Wikimedia Chapters could get involved with in the future.
In this case it would seem the most logical step on the advocacy side of
things would be to see if Wikimedia France has the time/capacity/interest to
take the lead in this case and try and raise some media attention to the
issues of Orphan works as exemplified by the Corbis case.
-Liam
wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Gn. Blogg: