On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Michael Snowwikipe...@verizon.net wrote:
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
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 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 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.
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
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
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
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
... the National Portrait Gallery appear to be sending legal threats
to individual uploaders, after the Foundation ignored their claims as
utterly, utterly specious.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dcoetzee/NPG_legal_threat
The editor in question is US-based.
So. What is WMF's response
I have, at least, indeffed the user account on en.wp used to send
this, and told them to follow up with Mike Godwin rather than onwiki.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 4:36 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
... the National Portrait Gallery appear to be sending legal threats
to individual
2009/7/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
... the National Portrait Gallery appear to be sending legal threats
to individual uploaders, after the Foundation ignored their claims as
utterly, utterly specious.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dcoetzee/NPG_legal_threat
The editor in
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
... the National Portrait Gallery appear to be sending legal threats
to individual uploaders, after the Foundation ignored their claims as
utterly, utterly specious.
2009/7/11 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
Technically, the user could just ignore this - a lawsuit in a UK court
without relevant jurisdiction, under US law as applies, can be
ignored. A default judgement against him might be entered, however,
and that might make future travel to
The UK Intellectual Property Office (http://www.ipo.gov.uk) says:
A work can only be original if it is the result of independent
creative effort. It will not be original if it has been copied from
something that already exists. If it is similar to something that
already exists but there has been
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/11 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
Technically, the user could just ignore this - a lawsuit in a UK court
without relevant jurisdiction, under US law as applies, can be
ignored. A default judgement
On 11/07/2009, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Technically, the user could just ignore this - a lawsuit in a UK court
without relevant jurisdiction, under US law as applies, can be
ignored. A default judgement against him might be entered, however,
and that might make
We're in contact with Derrick. We're looking at ways we may be able to help.
I think that since this case involves an individual (at least right now),
we'd probably do best not to game out strategy on it in a public mailing
list. So while discussing the general theory of copyright as it relates
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
I don't know as much about UK copyright
law as perhaps I should, given my choice of hobby and my location, but
I would be surprised if there was enough creativity or work involved
in taking a photograph of a
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Robert Rohderaro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
I don't know as much about UK copyright
law as perhaps I should, given my choice of hobby and my location, but
I would be surprised if there
2009/7/11 Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com:
Yes, and the letter from NPG seems to assert that:
...we can confirm that every one of the images that you have copied
is the product of a painstaking exercise on the part of the
photographer that created the image in which significant time, skill,
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/11 Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com:
Yes, and the letter from NPG seems to assert that:
...we can confirm that every one of the images that you have copied
is the product of a painstaking exercise on the part
2009/7/11 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com:
This is where in the US, Bridgeman v Corel established that a
slavish reproduction of a PD work does not constitute a new work
that can be protected by copyright.
We know that isn't the case under UK law, the question is whether the
photographs
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/11 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com:
This is where in the US, Bridgeman v Corel established that a
slavish reproduction of a PD work does not constitute a new work
that can be protected by copyright.
We
First, I doubt that the FBI would investigate a barratry complaint (Counselors,
does such a provision exist in the US Code?) If they did, the courts would be
reluctant to actually hear such a case because the person being prosecuted
would actually have to be present to answer to the charges. I
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?
Nathan
Dcoetzee cannot comply, as the deletions would result in the loss of his admin
bit.
From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 7:32:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] About
Thomas Dalton wrote:
The UK Intellectual Property Office (http://www.ipo.gov.uk) says:
...
That's the relevant bit of law. Is the intellectual input and
investment of resources involved in taking such a photograph
substantial?
Anyone who's been around here for any amount of time is
51 matches
Mail list logo
