After the confrontation between Derrick Coetzee and the National Portrait
Gallery, I thought people would enjoy this irony.
I wandered on to this page of theirs on John Michael Wright:
http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person.php?search=saLinkID=mp07767
role=artwPage=0
Hm, that
On 20 March 2011 16:43, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Can I sue them?
Sure . However under UK law which means you can only sue for actual
damages. Which in this case is likely to be limited. In reality if you
made enough threats you might get a few £ of out of them at which
Alternatively, I could make a gift of my intellectual property on that
article to Derrick Coetzee :)
-Original Message-
From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of geni
Sent: 20 March 2011 17:03
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re:
It is possible they have used that text from someone else who has
taken it from Wikipedia. I sometimes find this in the line of work I
do, where people submit information on the items they submit to us
(with no indication of where this information has come from), and I
then double-check and
On 20 March 2011 18:13, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
You would need to identify the point in
times at which the word structure of the current sentences emerge and
who wrote them. Given that others have contributed to this article,
you would need to be sure that they did not
I guess I was mainly enjoying the irony that people so prickly about their
own asserted copyrights can be so slapdash with material that is someone
else's copyright. They threw bricks at Derrick, now it appears they are
inhabiting a glass-house.
I doubt I'm much motivated to do anything about it
I discovered the NPG's infringement after the article [[John Michael
Wright]] was slated for TFA (due in an hour or two). As I say, I wrote 95%
of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#Errors_in_the_summar
y_of_today.27s_or_tomorrow.27s_featured_article
and
(Escalation, should that fail conclusively, would probably usefully
involve the blogosphere and then the media, in that order.
Escalation via the media strikes me as a completely inappropriate approach
even in theory.
Newyorkbrad
___
WikiEN-l
Hopefully the internal dispute on-wiki is now resolved.
Newyorkbrad
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
I discovered the NPG's infringement after the article [[John Michael
Wright]] was slated for TFA (due in an hour or two). As I say, I wrote
On 21 March 2011 01:21, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:
(Escalation, should that fail conclusively, would probably usefully
involve the blogosphere and then the media, in that order.
Escalation via the media strikes me as a completely inappropriate approach
even in theory.
Compliance, and a desire for collaboration, will of course be the best
outcome here.
An engraved invitation for Scott M. and guest to attend their next gala
opening would also be in order.
Newyorkbrad
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:25 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 March 2011
An apology would be nice.
Scott
-Original Message-
From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Newyorkbrad
Sent: 21 March 2011 01:28
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPG copyright irony
Compliance, and a desire for
Another 400 free Credo Reference accounts have been made available for
Wikipedians, kindly donated by the company and arranged by Erik Möller
of the Wikimedia Foundation. We've drawn up some eligibility criteria
to direct the accounts to content contributors, and after that it's
first come, first
13 matches
Mail list logo
