Nathan wrote:
If Dcoetzee complies with the request made in the letter from the NPG, and
some other
user from the U.S. (having previously made copies of the images at issue)
uploads them
again, what recourse would the NPG have wrt its database rights and TOS
claims?
Or better still if
Andrew Lih wrote:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know if there is precise precedent, but from what I've read I
think most people agree that sweat of the brow is, at least in some
cases, enough under UK law.
I suppose we'd need a
This was public as soon as it got posted on Wikimedia Commons.
The press notice is on our Signpost.
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tinget#Brukere_p.C3.A5_Wikimedia_Commons_i_tvist_med_National_Portrait_Gallery
John
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/7/11 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no:
I sent
2009/7/11 Sue Gardner susanpgard...@gmail.com:
Point of clarification -- the Wikimedia Foundation sends out press releases
to international media, not just US media. We have no plans to send out a
press release on this issue.
Of course, what I meant was that only the WMF sends press
2009/7/11 Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com:
Lets finish up the press releases and drop this thread. NPG can read it too.
Has a US press release been sent out?
I doubt it. The WMF handles US press releases and they aren't stupid
enough to talk to the press until they know what they're
Lets finish up the press releases and drop this thread. NPG can read it too.
Has a US press release been sent out?
From: John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009
2009/7/11 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no:
Local chapters can say something about whats going on, they can't make
claims on behalf of others, but they can interpret written statements
like any other blogger or news outlet. Just remember that wmf sends
press releases on behalf of wmf, nobody
Sure. Actually the New York chapter probably sends some press releases to US
media too; I'm not sure.
--Original Message--
From: Thomas Dalton
To: susanpgard...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Jul 11, 2009 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] About that sue and be
Point of clarification -- the Wikimedia Foundation sends out press releases to
international media, not just US media. We have no plans to send out a press
release on this issue.
Thanks,
Sue
--Original Message--
From: Thomas Dalton
Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
To:
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/7/11 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no:
I sent out a press release earlier today to newspapers in Norway. It was
sent to around 200 recipients. Perhaps others could do the same thing.
Please, nobody else take unilateral action. You're not the
2009/7/11 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/7/11 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no:
I sent out a press release earlier today to newspapers in Norway. It was
sent to around 200 recipients. Perhaps others could do the same thing.
Please, nobody else
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/7/11 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/7/11 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no:
I sent out a press release earlier today to newspapers in Norway. It was
sent to around 200 recipients. Perhaps others
2009/7/11 geni geni...@gmail.com:
The case is under English and welsh law. For solid legal reasons the
NPG will be willing to make a reasonable settlement.
Since we know that the NPG are not completely stupid and English law
in any case lacks statutory damages it would seem to be somewhat
Perhaps everybody should take that advice. I find it mildly amusing that
suddenly we have a list full of legal experts. Can we let those relevant
people do what the will now and stop speculating/guessing/etc. here and
elsewhere?
---
Rjd0060
rjd0060.w...@gmail.com
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 2:49
Seconded.
On 11/07/2009 19:52, Rjd0060 wrote:
Perhaps everybody should take that advice. I find it mildly amusing that
suddenly we have a list full of legal experts. Can we let those relevant
people do what the will now and stop speculating/guessing/etc. here and
elsewhere?
---
Rjd0060
John at Darkstar wrote:
This is public and has been so since the first posting. The press
release was just a reference of whats going on at Wikimedia Commons, the
specific user page describing the case and this mailing list. It is sent
out through the mailing list for Wikimedia Norway and it
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Lets finish up the press releases and drop this thread. NPG can read it too.
Has a US press release been sent out?
There's no problem with keeping this thread going, as long as we don't
pretend that there is anything official about the comments. Keeping the
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/7/11 geni geni...@gmail.com:
The case is under English and welsh law. For solid legal reasons the
NPG will be willing to make a reasonable settlement.
Since we know that the NPG are not completely stupid and English law
in any case lacks statutory damages it
For what it's worth - it's on slashdot now, so it presumably is about
to make its rounds through other press as well.
--
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/7/11 geni geni...@gmail.com:
The case is under English and welsh law. For solid legal reasons the
NPG will be willing to make a reasonable settlement.
Since we know that the NPG are
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
You can't know that and it's not your place to guess. Just stay out of
it unless Derrick asks for your help.
I think we can safely assume that the NPG it is not going to follow a
legal strategy that gives them a significant risk of facing
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
If he didn't want public comments he would not have made the letter
public; he might have chosen more private WMF channels.
Do you know that he sought legal advice before publishing the letter?
If he didn't, then is may not have been an informed
2009/7/11 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
You can't know that and it's not your place to guess. Just stay out of
it unless Derrick asks for your help.
I think we can safely assume that the NPG it is not going to follow a
legal strategy that gives them
Why are these images on Commons? According to [[Commons:Licensing]]:
Wikimedia Commons accepts only media [...] that are in the public domain in
at least the United States and in the source country of the work.
Is it because they are potentially PD in the UK, but it's unclear?
--Falcorian
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
If he didn't want public comments he would not have made the letter
public; he might have chosen more private WMF channels.
Do you know that he sought legal advice before publishing the letter?
If he didn't, then is
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 3:57 PM,
Falcorianalex.public.account+wikimediamailingl...@gmail.com wrote:
Why are these images on Commons? According to [[Commons:Licensing]]:
Wikimedia Commons accepts only media [...] that are in the public domain in
at least the United States and in the source
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
ROTFL. He published it; that's a fact. It would be very rare indeed for
anyone to have sought legal advice before making online comments. The
NPG site, like many others, has a link to its terms of service. How
often does *anyone* who uses such
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
If he didn't want public comments he would not have made the letter
public; he might have chosen more private WMF channels.
Thomas Dalton replied:
Do you know that he sought legal advice before publishing the letter?
If he didn't,
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
I've restored the comments that I was replying to since you deleted them
to wilfully mischaracterize my ROTFL as applying to the general issue
rather than your silly comments.
I've yet to see any evidence that you know what you are talking about.
Where the Norwegian chapter can be helpful is in letting us know how
such a thing might play out if we were concerned with pictures from
Norway's national gallery.
Ec
I guess you are speaking about GalleriNOR, which is a joint effort
between Nasjonalbiblioteket and Norsk Folkemuseum. Sorry
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
Would I be right in assuming that you are American? You certainly have
Oh, and Ray is Canadian ;-p
(I had people in the Slashdot thread assuming I was American despite
the davidgerard.co.uk domain ...)
- d.
2009/7/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
Would I be right in assuming that you are American? You certainly have
Oh, and Ray is Canadian ;-p
He should know better, then.
___
foundation-l mailing
2009/7/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
Would I be right in assuming that you are American? You certainly have
that religious view of free speech that is typical of Americans...
This has nothing to do with suppression of free speech, it has
2009/7/11 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no:
In the case of GalleriNOR several people uploaded images from the site
without prior agreement with neither NB nor NF. After a while I get in
touch with them and asked how we should handle the case, what people
believed was the right thing to do from
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/11 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no:
In the case of GalleriNOR several people uploaded images from the site
without prior agreement with neither NB nor NF. After a while I get in
touch with them and asked how we should handle the case, what people
believed was the
Hi all,
As a tangent to the national portrait gallery thing, I though I'd raise
something which I've chatted about previously (possibly here, but certainly
with various community members) which seems unresolved.
My understanding of the status quo is that when a commons administrator
deletes an
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 10:06 PM, John Doe phoenixoverr...@gmail.comwrote:
...
consider that these developers run one of the top ten websites on the
I didn't try to underestimate the *importance* of wikipedia.
It just uber-ridicule that a rename of subdomain (even with all those
sub-things)
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Cetateanu
Moldovanucetatean...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 10:06 PM, John Doe phoenixoverr...@gmail.comwrote:
...
consider that these developers run one of the top ten websites on the
I didn't try to underestimate the *importance* of wikipedia.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:45 PM, private musingsthepmacco...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
I
consider the fact that I can write 'Commons administrators will be able to
see an image here' to be the heart of the problem! I hope the foundation
might consider a software tweak of some sort to allow for
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
[snip]
If in retrospect, publishing the letter is seen as a strategic mistake,
it can't be unpublished. There are arguments available for it being a
strategic positive.
One argument for
Cetateanu Moldovanu wrote:
(and you still link it from
the first page of wikipedia..how ignorant can you be..).
Be polite. I would otherwise sympathise with your situation, but
DON'T-BE-RUDE.
Moreover, the first page of wikipedia is managed by wikipedians, not by
the developers...
It's heartening to hear that the foundation has zapped images in the past -
presumably because they were potentially illegal?
I'm also heartened by the fact that this isn't actually a huge problem at
the moment, so can be managed on a case by case basis - is there a good way
of letting someone
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
I've restored the comments that I was replying to since you deleted them
to wilfully mischaracterize my ROTFL as applying to the general issue
rather than your silly comments.
I've yet to see any evidence that you know
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Gregory Maxwellgmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
For clarity sake I should point out that the neither the complaint to
Wikimedia, nor the response to the OTRS reply, included any offer of
compromise.
Also worth mentioning is that a copyright complaint by the NPG
2009/7/11 private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com:
It's heartening to hear that the foundation has zapped images in the past -
presumably because they were potentially illegal?
I'm also heartened by the fact that this isn't actually a huge problem at
the moment, so can be managed on a case by
private musings wrote:
Hi all,
As a tangent to the national portrait gallery thing, I though I'd raise
something which I've chatted about previously (possibly here, but certainly
with various community members) which seems unresolved.
My understanding of the status quo is that when a
Hoi,
I am saddened about the current situation about the National Portrait
Gallery and the high resolution pictures that were lifted from its website.
The problem that I have is in the vocabulary used, it paints the NPG as our
enemy and we are to use pitch forks and fiery speeches to make them
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Consider the incentive system that you create when you combine a
copyright system which is effectively perpetual through retroactive
extensions plus the ability to copyright any work in the public domain
by making a slavish reproduction:
New exciting viable business
48 matches
Mail list logo
