It might get some action in the short term, but at what cost? What Fae just proposed is to make Wikimedia a reputational risk. This would scare people away from open access potentially doing long term damage. I don't have a magic bullet, but this kind of approach is decidedly worrying. In the meantime I can try to contact an appropriate curator. If we can get them onside that is the first step. On 28 Jul 2017 13:25, "Andy Mabbett" <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

I see my reply coincided with Richard's (who is working in Edinburgh today so we're not in the office together). Will discuss with him and others on the team and agree an approach. Best, Lucy On 28 July 2017 at 13:34, Lucy Crompton-Reid < lucy.crompton-reid(a)wikimedia.org.uk&gt; wrote: -- Lucy Crompton-Reid Chief Executive Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 207 065 0991 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. 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.*

Hi Fae You may not have seen my message to this list a few weeks ago that I had been in touch with the Director at Tullie House Museum, who thinks the copyright notice may be a mistake on their part - however he needed to check with the curator responsible who was on holiday at the time. I suspect the curator will be back now so this is a timely reminder to chase this up, which I will do! Cheers Lucy On 30 August 2017 at 19:50, Fæ &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Lucy Crompton-Reid Chief Executive Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 203 372 0762 Wikimedia UK is a 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. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. 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.*

Great to see the movement on this! My experience in the museums sector during my MGS residency in 2015-2016 taught me that these kinds of moves are much more significant that we sometimes realise in terms of organisational culture, and I would wholeheartedly support the notion that this is the most that could be asked of them at this point. Sara Thomas [[User:lirazelf]] ________________________________ From: Wikimediauk-l &lt;wikimediauk-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; on behalf of Lucy Crompton-Reid &lt;lucy.crompton-reid(a)wikimedia.org.uk&gt; Sent: 13 September 2017 16:05 To: UK Wikimedia mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum Dear all I've heard back from Tullie House Museum and they are changing the no photography signs on the exhibition to remove the word copyright. However my understanding is that they do have a restriction on photography for the items loaned by the British Museum. My feeling is that this is the most we can ask Tullie House at this point, but that it highlights the need for continued advocacy about copyright and licensing issues to the cultural sector generally, and to the BM more specifically. Best Lucy On 31 August 2017 at 10:28, Lucy Crompton-Reid <lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk<mailto:lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk>> wrote: Hi Fae You may not have seen my message to this list a few weeks ago that I had been in touch with the Director at Tullie House Museum, who thinks the copyright notice may be a mistake on their part - however he needed to check with the curator responsible who was on holiday at the time. I suspect the curator will be back now so this is a timely reminder to chase this up, which I will do! Cheers Lucy On 30 August 2017 at 19:50, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com<mailto:faewik@gmail.com>> wrote: Ping :-) It's been over a month, does anyone know if the Tullie House Museum has removed the misleading copyright notices? If there has been no contact yet, I'd be happy to send off a letter as a long term Wikimedia Commons volunteer to the BM and the THM for an official response that I can add to the record on Commons. Thanks, Fae On 28 July 2017 at 13:34, Lucy Crompton-Reid <lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk<mailto:lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk>> wrote: -- faewik@gmail.com<mailto:faewik@gmail.com> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org<mailto:wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk -- Lucy Crompton-Reid Chief Executive Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 203 372 0762 Wikimedia UK is a 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. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. 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. -- Lucy Crompton-Reid Chief Executive Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 203 372 0762 Wikimedia UK is a 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. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. 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.

On 14 September 2017 at 08:21, Nick Poole &lt;Nick.Poole(a)cilip.org.uk&gt; wrote: Yes, Lucy's reaching out worked and I'm grateful for that effort. However, as far as I'm aware, nothing was planned, and indeed nothing has happened for a few years now, to address institutional copyfraud in the UK, despite some of the most globally famous cases occurring in this country, such as the National Portrait Gallery.[1] Shamefully, even standard texts that professionals refer to for UK IP law, incorrectly treat "sweat of the brow" as being definitive, rather than it being legally untested and hypothetical. With regard to community, the previous UK GLAM-wiki network that started the global movement around the time I was the UK national GLAM coordinator has gradually evaporated, but has left behind assets like the Outreach wiki. The GLAM community is gradually becoming directed by the WMF, which considering recent events with some chapters, I think is actually a good thing both in terms of funding, longevity and reputation. If you are looking for case studies and material to provide to institutions then get in touch with Sadads[2], though as the chapter has produced materials and reports in the past, including advice for institutions wanting to provide better open access, the starting point should be the CEO reviewing existing assets with her staff. Without volunteers prepared to invest weeks of their time creating more materials and planning meetings with GLAMs, WMUK must rely on its full time staff to do most of this work. If educating or simply prompting GLAMs on their open access strategies by truly managing relationships, rather than just sending out leaflets, is not in the coming annual plan, perhaps the WMUK trustees should have a chat with the CEO about how to move this forward and for the chapter to become seen as a reliable institution to turn to for advice, rather than leaving it to the tertiary education bodies which have been leading UK improvements to, and interpretation of, Open Access or avoiding copyfraud. Museums/GLAMs are going to stay risk averse with their collections. If we presume this will stay true for the foreseeable future, then "risk averse" needs to include avoiding the reputational risk of copyfraud as a more urgent issue than saving some money by never bothering correctly to assess the copyright status of media and artefacts. If we take two obvious case studies familiar to WMUK: (A) The British Museum is a leader in open access, making its main database open to the public online several years ago and supporting the Portable Antiquities Scheme database (PAS) which has an excellent licensing strategy for content and photographs, so that reuse on our projects is actually encouraged.[3] The main database has understandable licensing restrictions, primarily because artefact photographs and catalogue text were produced long before current expectations for open licensing existed. Right now is an excellent time for WMUK to refresh its contacts at the BM as there is an opportunity to influence planned changes to the way this works. The Tullie House case is a good starting point to ensure that the BM changes its loan procedures to never have restrictions on photography for ancient artefacts that cannot be damaged by being photographed, and ensure than no receiving institution does anything which even looks like copyfraud. (B) The Imperial War museum the best case study of how not to do it in the UK. In the last two years the IWM has systematically watermarked all their 500,000+ online images and videos, even though the vast majority of their collection is public domain. Their archive was created by the Government and has the single purpose of being held in trust for the benefit of the public, so their odd approach of damaging the images with watermarks and falsely claiming all media as being their commercial copyright, even public domain media taken from other archives, to ensure that they can cash in and use the archive as a retail outlet, is not just bizarre, but blatant and deliberate copyfraud. Yes, they have been a hobby-horse of mine for a few years now, but we have no better counter-example and their approach has actually got worse in the last 4 years. I doubt their current management team care much about anyone making public statements about their copyfraud, so the only hope of changing their misuse of public domain material would be to foster contacts on the IWM board of trustees. As an independent volunteer I'm free to write to the trustees to make a case, in a way that the chapter never would; given my understanding of their recent managerial changes/issues and organizational challenges, I suspect that harder approach may be more effective than spending another four years trying soft soap. P.S. Nick, while you are here, at your next meeting could you ask your CEO to ensure that all emails from chapter domain addresses are properly archived. If there is a PR, legal, or financial incident and, say, a journalist is making claims about the chapter, you should be able to definitively refer to your records, which legally includes chapter emails. Cheers, Fae Links 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_and_Wikimedia_Found… 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Astinson_(WMF) 3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Project_list/PAS -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On 28 July 2017 at 13:24, Andy Mabbett &lt;andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk&gt; wrote: Do nothing. The pressure from camera phone crowd takes care of the matter quite nicely. Remember as recently as 2013 tullie house didn't allow any photography at all. -- geni

On 28 July 2017 at 13:36, Fæ &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Me too - though it should be borne in mind that the labels might have been placed at the instigation of the THM, with no BM involvement. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Thanks for the feedback. Just to be clear, this absolutely is a classic example of copyfraud. To say "I see no evidence of copyfraud by the BM" is precisely correct, however this is still copyfraud. It's an example that is very handy for Wikimedia Commons to use to illustrate its own policies with regard to deletions and allowed photographs where there are false claims of copyright being made. Certainly I would be extremely concerned if the Wikimedia Foundation were in any way funding events or projects in partnership with a GLAM institution that continues to propagate copyfraud, rather than taking positive action to stamp it out. We can see by simply looking at the photographs that copyfraud is being committed by the Tullie House Museum, as they give members of the public tickets for the exhibition, and are fully responsible for the exhibition itself. I agree it is not clear yet whether the British Museum have specifically required the Tullie House Museum to use this particular sign and text. That would be a great question to get answered. I find it highly unlikely that the THM have used a notice that was not agreed with the BM, in just the same way as the text of the related labels and posters would be agreed. Despite the same exhibition having many other artefacts from different museums across Europe and several objects on loan from personal collections, I could not see any other signs of this type against anything other than objects on loan from the BM. Thanks, Fae On 28 July 2017 at 14:14, Michael Maggs &lt;michael(a)maggs.name&gt; wrote: -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

I agree with Lucy's approach here. We should try to raise this issue directly and privately with the museum involved to let them know they've made a mistake with the copyright of the object and ask them to correct it. My feeling is that Tullie House is a small museum with limited staff, so they sloppily applied the "no photo because copyright" tag onto the stands of any borrowed exhibit and simply forgot that this object is >200 years old and therefore no longer copyrighted. Starting the message with "copyfraud" catches Wikimedians' attention, but isn't helpful towards achieving our outcome of actually getting things into open copyright or making sure public domain things don't get restricted. --Deryck On 28 July 2017 at 15:52, Richard Symonds &lt;chasemewiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: