By Ally Crockford, former Wikipedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland

I have lived in the UK for what will be 9 years in September. I studied for 5 of those years and worked for four. I completed a PhD, organised international conferences, published papers, spoke across the UK and internationally, and taught for about 7 years. I was also the first Wikimedian in Residence in Scotland, and must have done a reasonably good job at it as my contract was extended several times and I was invited to speak about the work I was doing around Scotland and in Europe.

But this year the UK government brings into law a salary threshold test which means that non-EU workers must earn over £35,000 a year after 5 years of working in the UK or be deported.

I would hope that I would be considered highly skilled and employable – certainly I have spent nearly a decade contributing to the UK economy and society. I have also made connections, instigated projects, and generally built a life here. This has become my home, where I have spent a third of my life and the majority of my adulthood. However, whether the result of pursuing an academic career or because of the economic crisis (I suspect the latter significantly altering the former), my work life has been a constant series of short-term contracts, project-based funding, and similar temporary jobs.

In an attempt to be able to stay in the UK, to reach the 10 year mark and obtain leave to remain, I even left academia and have taken up a full-time position as a Digital Media Officer. But I just couldn’t stay ahead of the increasingly nasty immigration laws. My unique skillset does not qualify me for a work visa, and even if it did, I would not be able to obtain leave to remain after 10 years because my salary is far below £35,000p/a.

I’m tired of fighting. I want to stay here. I want to contribute, pay taxes, be a part of the city and the community that I love. But there’s only so long that a person can live within 18 month windows of security, constantly fretting about the next immigration policy, the next visa application, the next hurdle. And I am a white, middle-class, highly educated woman who speaks English as a first language: if I find the fight exhausting, I can’t imagine what it would be like if I weren’t any or all of these things.

To me, the idea that immigration is a one-in, one-out system is ridiculous. Respected economists have proof that immigration is economically beneficial, that it creates jobs, adds to social security pots, does the exact opposite of everything that the Daily Mail or Theresa May or Nigel Farage claim it does. Here in Scotland, immigration caps and salary requirements will have an even more detrimental effect as nurses, teachers, and people working in a range of essential services will not meet the £35,000 mark.

You never know who is going to be the next Steve Jobs. You don’t know who is going to launch the next Google, or create the next Wikipedia. There is nothing behind this policy other than ignorance, prejudice, and fear. Please don’t let those qualities be what defines this country.

The post I’ve lived in the UK for 9 years but the government wants to deport me appeared first on Wikimedia UK.

Last week there were two  letters to The Times newspaper on the issue of copyright reform and freedom of panorama. These were published on Friday 26 June. One was signed by Michael Maggs as Wikimedia UK Chair, the was signed by several organisations supporting the protection of freedom of panorama. The letters are published below.

*****

Sir, The freedom to take a photograph in a public place, and to do you what like with your own image without having to seek permission from the building’s owner or other rights holder, has been a fundamental part of UK law for more than a century.

It has been suggested that restricting “commercial use” would be acceptable, as that would affect only professional photographers and film makers, but that is not the case. Any private individual who uploads personal photographs to a social media website will be affected, as most sites require users to warrant that their uploads do not not infringe the intellectual property rights of any third party. Anybody using social media to share even private photographs that include a modern building or streetscape within the view will be at significant legal risk.

Before this recent negative proposal, Julia Reda, MEP, had sought to persuade the European Parliament to retain existing freedom of panorama, and to extend it to those European countries that do not currently enjoy those rights. Her original proposal is to be applauded and should be restored.

Michael Maggs
Chairman, Wikimedia UK

*****

Sir, We agree that moves to restrict the freedom to photograph buildings and artworks in public places, currently permitted under section 62 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, should give rise to the greatest concern (leader, June 24).

If such a measure is adopted in the future, most websites and most photographers would instantly become copyright infringers with any photo of any public space which features at least one structure designed by a person that is either alive, or died fewer than 70 years ago.

The prohibition would dramatically affect the way we share knowledge, culture and current events, as well as our everyday lives. Tourists would not be able to promote our country with their photographs on commercial websites such as Facebook or Flickr; Wikipedia, which is designed to be free for any use, would not be able to describe our landmarks; and professional photographers would need to contact dozens of rightsholders for any photo they shoot in public spaces, spending more money on paperwork than they can possibly earn with the outcome. Even blogs which have advertising would be affected.

We urge all UK MEPs to vote not to let the current paragraph 16 go through unamended during the vote in the plenary session in Strasbourg on July 9, and to defend our right to make and use photos of public spaces.

Paul Herrmann, chairman, British Photographic Council; Jeff Moore, chairman, British Press Photographers’ Association; Denise Swanson, British Institute of Professional Photographers; Jimmy Wales, founder, Wikipedia; Nigel Atherton, editor, Amateur Photographer; Stewart Gibson, Bureau of Freelance Photographers; Dominic Cooper, general secretary, Chartered Institute of Journalists; Alastair McCapra, chief executive, Chartered Institute of Public Relations; Jim Killock, executive director, Open Rights Group

The post The Freedom to Photograph must be upheld – letters to The Times appeared first on Wikimedia UK.

The Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU (FKAGEU), of which Wikimedia UK is a member, has this week published a paper on copyright reform across the European Union.

This is in response to the Report on the responses to the Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules and the draft white paper on a copyright policy for creativity and innovation in the European Union.

The position paper has already been shared with key members of the European Commission. The main recommendations from the paper are that:

• The Commission should clarify the European copyright framework by harmonising legislation and creating a single EU Copyright Title
• The Commission should ensure everyone has the liberty to freely use and share images taken in public spaces by introducing Freedom of Panorama universally (currently optional under Directive 2001/29/EC Article 5 Point 3.H)
• The Commission should ensure that all works created by officials within the EU administration and institutions are open for use and re-use by everyone. Such works should hence not be subject to copyright protection.
• The Commission should re-balance the current culturally and economically harmful mismatch between public commons and private property and close the “20th century gap” by shortening copyright terms to the minimum term possible under existing international treaties and conventions.

The FKAGEU is a grouping of European Wikimedia chapters and other open knowledge organisations from throughout the EU. The work has largely been co-ordinated by Dimitar Dimitrov, the movement’s Wikimedian in Brussels.

This landmark paper has been signed by 33 parties from 17 European countries, of which 16 are Wikimedia chapters, thematic organisations or user groups. You can see a full list of signing partners here.

The post Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU publishes copyright reform paper appeared first on Wikimedia UK.

This post was written by Stevie Benton, Wikimedia UK’s Head of External Relations

On Tuesday I was fortunate enough to attend a round table event hosted by the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy at the House of Commons.

The opportunity came about as the result of the work that Wikimedia UK is doing with Demos in attempting to crowdsource a submission to the Commission on the theme of digital scrutiny. (If you haven’t participated yet, please get involved here, it’s open to everyone. Simply click the edit button and get stuck in.)

The session brought together people from the Commission with technology experts and activists to examine how digital technologies can encourage participation in the democratic process.

Something that was reinforced very quickly was the important distinction between between government – the collection of elected representatives that write and enact legislation – and Parliament, in this case the body as a whole, including the infrastructure and systems, and which was our main focus.

A number of themes emerged from the workshop but there were two that left the deepest impression upon me.

Firstly, that for digital democracy to work there needs to be a level of trust on the part of parliament – citizens must be trusted to make meaningful contributions to the debate and this means opening things up and encouraging participation.

Secondly, that when we break down the phrase “digital democracy” we realise that the digital part is actually pretty easy. There are plenty of tools that exist that could be successfully utilised to support democratic engagement, and building new ones if they were required wouldn’t be too difficult (relatively speaking, of course). It’s the democracy bit that’s difficult.

My own take on this is that we need to move away from the widespread feeling that democracy comes down to making a mark on a ballot paper every few years. For democracy to be effective, participation needs to shift away from the ballot box and into the every day processes that form a functioning and mature democracy. But those taking part need to be assured that their contribution is are meaningful and valued, even if their views don’t always win out.

There is a long way to go here before we get close to realising the potential that digital technologies offer to democracy. But the Commission is very serious about pushing forward change and opening up the democratic process to wider engagement through the use of digital. They should be applauded for this and, as citizens, we should be prepared to contribute our efforts towards making this successful.

For further reading, I recommend this excellent blog post  by James Smith of the Open Data Institute. James was in the same working group as myself and his contributions to the debate were particularly insightful.

The Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy will be publishing resources from the event on their website shortly.

The post Discussing the future of digital democracy appeared first on Wikimedia UK.