Carcharoth wrote: > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Mathias > Schindler<[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2007 at 9:22 AM, David Gerard<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> And then presumably we should ask the National Portrait Gallery about >>> their claimed copyright on hundreds of years old pictures. [*] >>> >>> >>> [*] hint: the NPG stopped sending us letters claiming this after Jimbo >>> said "sue and be damned." >>> >> at least until now.... >> >> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/11/1239244/UKs-National-Portrait-Gallery-Threatens-To-Sue-Wikipedia-User?art_pos=1 >> > This is now in the UK newspapers: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jul/14/national-portrait-gallery-wikipedia-row > > http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?National_Portrait_Gallery_sues_Wikipedia&in_article_id=702647&in_page_id=34 > > One wonders about the state of journalism in England when the people at Metro can't tell the difference between a lawyer's letter and an actual lawsuit.
I can imagine some future encyclopaedist referring to Metro as a reliable source to establish that the NPG had in fact sued Wikipedia. (not even Wikimedia). Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
