But even if FOI is deemed to apply to photographs of artwork, they could
release the files and still maintain their claim of copyright
http://www.dca.gov.uk/foi/yourRights/index.htm#receive

They could also claim commercial interest (IMO reasonably) as a reason not
to comply with such a FOI request, but this is at least tested against the
public interest.
http://www.dca.gov.uk/foi/yourRights/exemptions.htm#43

Pete / the wub


2009/7/12 Dahsun <dah...@yahoo.com>

>
> I agree that the WMUK shouldn't get directly involved, but if without
> making any reference to the case in hand they request the same information
> under the FOI then I would have thought they were indirectly rather than
> directly involved.
>
> As for whether the FOI has an exemption for artwork, well I'd be interested
> in what the lawyers have to say on this as there is some legalese in the
> legislation that I can't get my head around.
>
> However the National Portrait Gallery has its own handy
> http://www.npg.org.uk/about/foi.php section on FOI, and I don't read that
> as containing any substantial claim of exemption from the Act for the
> gallery. They also have some fine objectives including "the provision of
> access to the national collection of portraits for all sections of the
> population" but reassuringly not "the restriction of access to the national
> collection of portraits only to those who can visit the gallery in person"
> or "maximising of the commercial use of the images" ~~~~
>
> --- On Sat, 11/7/09, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] "sue and be damned" FOI to
> NPG
> > To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Date: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 1:00 PM
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to