On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Michael Snow 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 domain
>> by ma
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 busine
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge :
>
>> 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
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Ray Saintonge 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 it can't be unpublished.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 it bein
2009/7/11 David Gerard :
> 2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton :
>
>> 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 to do
>> with being responsible ab
2009/7/11 David Gerard :
> 2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton :
>
>> 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 list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.or
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton :
> 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.
___
foundatio
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton :
> 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 to do
> with being responsible about what you say. I am not a leg
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge :
> 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.
> Your opposit
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge :
> >> 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, then is
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge :
> 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 sites ever get leg
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Ray Saintonge 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 it being a mistake is that the early disclosure has
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 3:57 PM,
Falcorian 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 country of the work."
> Is it because they are poten
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge :
>
>> 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 h
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 12:57 PM,
Falcorian 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 country of the work."
> Is it because they are pote
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
__
2009/7/11 geni :
> 2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton :
>> 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 mil
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge :
> 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 choice. If he's
made a
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton :
> 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 millions
in legal bills. Due
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge :
>
>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/7/11 geni :
>>>
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 comp
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: https
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 2009/7/11 geni :
>>
>>> 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 lack
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/7/11 geni :
>
>> 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 see
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge :
> 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 a
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
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 i
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?
>
> ---
> Rjd
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 P
2009/7/11 geni :
> 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
> improbable tha
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/7/11 geni :
>> 2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton :
>>> 2009/7/11 John at Darkstar :
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 unila
2009/7/11 geni :
> 2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton :
>> 2009/7/11 John at Darkstar :
>>> 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 one b
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/7/11 John at Darkstar :
>> 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 one being
> sued, it isn't yo
2009/7/11 Geoffrey Plourde :
> 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 talking
about.
___
2009/7/11 John at Darkstar :
> 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
"sue and be damned" to the National
Portrait Gallery ...
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 ma
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 :
>> I sent out a press
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 is not a
statement on the beha
2009/7/11 John at Darkstar :
> 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 one being
sued, it isn't your call.
_
On 11/07/2009, John at Darkstar wrote:
> 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.
Before doing this, it may be an idea to run prospective press releases
past Jay and Mike. (jwa...@wikimedia.
Mike.lifeguard wrote:
> Furthermore (and in a bizarre distortion of anything reasonable), NPG
> actually claims copyright on photos that individual visitors take. So,
> copyright on PD works is only OK if they own it... now that's just
> ridiculous. I'm not sure appeasing them is possible or even a
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.
John
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/7/11 David Gerard :
>
>> It gets better: the editor they sent the threat to is an American.
>> So, to recap: A UK organi
NPG claims that Dcoetzee would be liable for the infringement resultant
from him posting the photos on Commons. So, the reuse is a copyvio and
reuse of that is a copyvio and reuse of that... So it's not clear that
even removing the images would do anything to protect him.
Furthermore (and in a biz
2009/7/11 David Gerard :
> It gets better: the editor they sent the threat to is an American.
> So, to recap: A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal
> action over what is unambiguously, in established US law, not a
> copyright violation of any sort.
> I can't see this ending well
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> 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
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Dcoetzee cannot comply, as the deletions would result in the loss of his
> admin bit.
Somehow I doubt they really want wiki-deletion anyway.
To "permanently delete from the hard drive of your computer (or any
computer upon which you or a
Robert Rohde wrote:
> There are serious legal disagreements about this, but people have
> argued for some time that the UK is perhaps the purest example of a
> "sweat of the brow" state with respect to their copyright law. In
> other words, the prevailing view of many has been that UK law rewards
Andrew Lih wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Thomas Dalton 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 humidity re
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 sti
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Wikimedia UK may also be able to help,
> I don't know (we don't yet have a lawyer, but for something this
> specific we can find one). I don't know if WMUK wants to get involved
> with this sort of thing but if it does it could be a useful vehicle
> for collecting the funds.
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 tim
Dcoetzee cannot comply, as the deletions would result in the loss of his admin
bit.
From: Nathan
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 7:32:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to th
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
__
.
From: George Herbert
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 5:29:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National
Portrait Gallery ...
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/7/11 G
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/7/11 Gregory Maxwell :
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 cas
2009/7/11 Gregory Maxwell :
>>> 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 in
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/7/11 Andrew Lih :
>> 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
2009/7/11 Andrew Lih :
> 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,
> effort and art
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>
>> 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 invol
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 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 painting for it to be indep
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 to
On 11/07/2009, George Herbert 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 future travel to Europe di
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/7/11 George Herbert :
>> 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,
>> a
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
2009/7/11 George Herbert :
> 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 Europe difficult.
Would
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/7/11 David Gerard :
>> ... 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/Use
2009/7/11 David Gerard :
> ... 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-
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 Gerard wrote:
> ... the National Portrait Gallery appear to be sending legal threats
> to individual uploaders, after the
... 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 to
68 matches
Mail list logo
