Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] About that sue and be damned to the National Portrait Gallery ...
2009/7/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 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 for the NPG. In fact, the more legal success they have with this approach (and they do have a plausible cause in the UK, if they throw enough money at arguing so), the more *utterly radioactive* the publicity for them will be. I’ll be calling the NPG first thing Monday (in my capacity as “just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics”) to establish just what they think they’re doing here. Other WMF bloggers and, if interested, journalists may wish to do the same, to establish what their consistent response is. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] About that sue and be damned to the National Portrait Gallery ...
David makes some excellent points. May I suggest one thing? Wouldn't it better if journalists were making the calls that david rightly suggests? If we have some 'friends' in this newspaper community could we not tell them what david explains below and get them to make this call? If we wake them up to the weakness of their position they will simply fix it. If we get the news 'out there' we can simply be interested bystanders watching their troubles. A nicer situation to be in. - Original Message - From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sat Jul 11 11:43:42 2009 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] About that sue and be damned to the National Portrait Gallery ... 2009/7/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 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 for the NPG. In fact, the more legal success they have with this approach (and they do have a plausible cause in the UK, if they throw enough money at arguing so), the more *utterly radioactive* the publicity for them will be. I’ll be calling the NPG first thing Monday (in my capacity as “just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics”) to establish just what they think they’re doing here. Other WMF bloggers and, if interested, journalists may wish to do the same, to establish what their consistent response is. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] sue and be damned FOI to NPG
Perhaps the air would be slightly clearer if Wikimedia UK were to make Freedom of Information Act requests to the NPG and other Publicly funded galleries for the highest def digital photos they have available of any artworks in their possession. --- On Sat, 11/7/09, Virgin, Steve steve.vir...@dowjones.com wrote: From: Virgin, Steve steve.vir...@dowjones.com Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] About that sue and be damned to the National Portrait Gallery ... To: 'wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org' wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 12:17 PM David makes some excellent points. May I suggest one thing? Wouldn't it better if journalists were making the calls that david rightly suggests? If we have some 'friends' in this newspaper community could we not tell them what david explains below and get them to make this call? If we wake them up to the weakness of their position they will simply fix it. If we get the news 'out there' we can simply be interested bystanders watching their troubles. A nicer situation to be in. - Original Message - From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sat Jul 11 11:43:42 2009 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] About that sue and be damnedto the National Portrait Gallery ... 2009/7/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 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 for the NPG. In fact, the more legal success they have with this approach (and they do have a plausible cause in the UK, if they throw enough money at arguing so), the more *utterly radioactive* the publicity for them will be. I’ll be calling the NPG first thing Monday (in my capacity as “just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics”) to establish just what they think they’re doing here. Other WMF bloggers and, if interested, journalists may wish to do the same, to establish what their consistent response is. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] sue and be damned FOI to NPG
2009/7/11 Dahsun dah...@yahoo.com: Perhaps the air would be slightly clearer if Wikimedia UK were to make Freedom of Information Act requests to the NPG and other Publicly funded galleries for the highest def digital photos they have available of any artworks in their possession. WMUK getting directly involved in this would be very bad for WMUK's (legal) perceived separation from WMF. Of course, WMUK could meaningfully comment that claiming copyright on something four hundred years old is more than a little odious - it's not like the painter will paint another painting if only th NPG can make legal threats. That said, your approach is most certainly particularly amusing :-D I expect they'd claim these were commercial works and the core of their business or somesuch. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] About that sue and be damned to the National Portrait Gallery ...
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 11:43 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: In fact, the more legal success they have with this approach (and they do have a plausible cause in the UK, if they throw enough money at arguing so), the more *utterly radioactive* the publicity for them will be. I’ll be calling the NPG first thing Monday (in my capacity as “just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics”) to establish just what they think they’re doing here. Other WMF bloggers and, if interested, journalists may wish to do the same, to establish what their consistent response is. What they think they're doing is protecting their revenue. I've just posted on commons explaining where I think the NPG are coming from. To cut a long story short, they are a non-profit making gallery and licensing reproductions makes them a sizable annual income. They are also key members of a group which co-ordinates other UK museums and galleries on copyright law. They can't just decide to give up this case; they will fight it, if needs be, in court. Expect the NPG to argue that allowing WMF to host reproductions would, in effect, extend Bridgeman v Corel worldwide, thereby depriving galleries of a significant income from reproduction fees - income which would not therefore be available to fund restoration of pictures etc. They are also likely to say that the result would probably be that galleries would be unable to afford to run websites containing reproductions, so it would actually diminish public access. I doubt that the media battle will be one-sided. The NPG has a large number of influential friends. -- Sam Blacketer ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
[Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] About that sue and be damned to the National Portrait Gallery ...
Sending this again - I am a list member but got a bounce message for some reason. -- Forwarded message -- From: Sam Blacketer sam.blacke...@googlemail.com Date: Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] About that sue and be damned to the National Portrait Gallery ... To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 11:43 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: In fact, the more legal success they have with this approach (and they do have a plausible cause in the UK, if they throw enough money at arguing so), the more *utterly radioactive* the publicity for them will be. I’ll be calling the NPG first thing Monday (in my capacity as “just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics”) to establish just what they think they’re doing here. Other WMF bloggers and, if interested, journalists may wish to do the same, to establish what their consistent response is. What they think they're doing is protecting their revenue. I've just posted on commons explaining where I think the NPG are coming from. To cut a long story short, they are a non-profit making gallery and licensing reproductions makes them a sizable annual income. They are also key members of a group which co-ordinates other UK museums and galleries on copyright law. They can't just decide to give up this case; they will fight it, if needs be, in court. Expect the NPG to argue that allowing WMF to host reproductions would, in effect, extend Bridgeman v Corel worldwide, thereby depriving galleries of a significant income from reproduction fees - income which would not therefore be available to fund restoration of pictures etc. They are also likely to say that the result would probably be that galleries would be unable to afford to run websites containing reproductions, so it would actually diminish public access. I doubt that the media battle will be one-sided. The NPG has a large number of influential friends. -- Sam Blacketer -- Sam Blacketer ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] sue and be damned FOI to NPG
Why are my posts not appearing on this list when I am a list subscriber? -- Sam Blacketer ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] sue and be damned FOI to NPG
2009/7/11 Sam Blacketer sam.blacke...@googlemail.com: Why are my posts not appearing on this list when I am a list subscriber? You're subscribed as @gmail.com but are now sending from @googlemail.com. I've added a whitelisting for the @googlemail.com address. Others with this problem can solve it easily by subscribing the other address too and setting it to 'nomail.' - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] About that sue and be damnedto the National Portrait Gallery ...
I have emailed the culture department, pointed them at the legal threat, and asked a few questions and for a statement on this. Brian. -Original Message- From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Blacketer Sent: 11 July 2009 12:23 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] About that sue and be damnedto the National Portrait Gallery ... On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 11:43 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: In fact, the more legal success they have with this approach (and they do have a plausible cause in the UK, if they throw enough money at arguing so), the more *utterly radioactive* the publicity for them will be. I'll be calling the NPG first thing Monday (in my capacity as just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics) to establish just what they think they're doing here. Other WMF bloggers and, if interested, journalists may wish to do the same, to establish what their consistent response is. What they think they're doing is protecting their revenue. I've just posted on commons explaining where I think the NPG are coming from. To cut a long story short, they are a non-profit making gallery and licensing reproductions makes them a sizable annual income. They are also key members of a group which co-ordinates other UK museums and galleries on copyright law. They can't just decide to give up this case; they will fight it, if needs be, in court. Expect the NPG to argue that allowing WMF to host reproductions would, in effect, extend Bridgeman v Corel worldwide, thereby depriving galleries of a significant income from reproduction fees - income which would not therefore be available to fund restoration of pictures etc. They are also likely to say that the result would probably be that galleries would be unable to afford to run websites containing reproductions, so it would actually diminish public access. I doubt that the media battle will be one-sided. The NPG has a large number of influential friends. -- Sam Blacketer ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] About that sue and be damned to the National Portrait Gallery ...
2009/7/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: I’ll be calling the NPG first thing Monday (in my capacity as “just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics”) to establish just what they think they’re doing here. Other WMF bloggers and, if interested, journalists may wish to do the same, to establish what their consistent response is. Please don't. This is Derrick's case, let him decide what to do before you do anything. Whatever we are going to do, it needs to be part of a united strategy. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] About that sue and be damned to the National Portrait Gallery ...
2009/7/11 Virgin, Steve steve.vir...@dowjones.com: David makes some excellent points. May I suggest one thing? Wouldn't it better if journalists were making the calls that david rightly suggests? If we have some 'friends' in this newspaper community could we not tell them what david explains below and get them to make this call? If we wake them up to the weakness of their position they will simply fix it. If we get the news 'out there' we can simply be interested bystanders watching their troubles. A nicer situation to be in. Maybe, but not yet. We need to wait until Derrick and the WMF have talked and determined their strategy, then we can work out what we can do to help. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
