On 11/07/2009, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote: > I imagine the user in question has no choice but the fight the case, > since he doesn't have the power to fix the alleged infringement (the > commons community may decide to remove them, but our community tends > to be of the opinion that we shouldn't bow down to such legal threats, > especially under non-US law). 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 independently > copyrightable.
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 contrast, we have the V&A, who - gasp! - realise that spreading their name and exhibits far and wide (Wikipedia Loves Art) is much more likely to get them money and fame than will breathtakingly odious claims of copyright over works hundreds of years old. Really. Is there anyone sane at the NPG? Do they really expect to successfully sue an American over an action that's unambiguously legal in America? - d. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
