Re: About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

Sue Gardner
Sure. Actually the New York chapter probably sends some press releases to US media too; I'm not sure.

------Original Message------
From: Thomas Dalton
To: [hidden email]
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Jul 11, 2009 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

2009/7/11 Sue Gardner <[hidden email]>:
> Point of clarification -- the Wikimedia Foundation sends out press releases to international media, not just US media.  We have no plans to send out a press release on this issue.

Of course, what I meant was that only the WMF sends press releases to
US media, not that the WMF only sends press releases to US media.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

John at Darkstar
Local chapters can say something about whats going on, they can't make
claims on behalf of others, but they can interpret written statements
like any other blogger or news outlet. Just remember that wmf sends
press releases on behalf of wmf, nobody else do that.

John

Sue Gardner wrote:

> Sure. Actually the New York chapter probably sends some press releases to US media too; I'm not sure.
>
> ------Original Message------
> From: Thomas Dalton
> To: [hidden email]
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Sent: Jul 11, 2009 10:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...
>
> 2009/7/11 Sue Gardner <[hidden email]>:
>> Point of clarification -- the Wikimedia Foundation sends out press releases to international media, not just US media.  We have no plans to send out a press release on this issue.
>
> Of course, what I meant was that only the WMF sends press releases to
> US media, not that the WMF only sends press releases to US media.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

Thomas Dalton
2009/7/11 John at Darkstar <[hidden email]>:
> Local chapters can say something about whats going on, they can't make
> claims on behalf of others, but they can interpret written statements
> like any other blogger or news outlet. Just remember that wmf sends
> press releases on behalf of wmf, nobody else do that.

That doesn't mean it is a responsible thing to do. This case could
bankrupt a member of our community, it has to be handled with care.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by John at Darkstar
John at Darkstar wrote:
> Local chapters can say something about whats going on, they can't make
> claims on behalf of others, but they can interpret written statements
> like any other blogger or news outlet. Just remember that wmf sends
> press releases on behalf of wmf, nobody else do that.
>
>  
Where the Norwegian chapter can be helpful is in letting us know how
such a thing might play out if we were concerned with pictures from
Norway's national gallery.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

John at Darkstar
> Where the Norwegian chapter can be helpful is in letting us know how
> such a thing might play out if we were concerned with pictures from
> Norway's national gallery.
>
> Ec

I guess you are speaking about GalleriNOR, which is a joint effort
between Nasjonalbiblioteket and Norsk Folkemuseum. Sorry for my rotten
english, but I guess the information is more important than the grammr! ;)

In the case of GalleriNOR several people uploaded images from the site
without prior agreement with neither NB nor NF. After a while I get in
touch with them and asked how we should handle the case, what people
believed was the right thing to do from our side and what NB and NF
wanted to do. First the stand was established as "the images must be
deleted" and "we don't want to delete them", then we said "okey we will
attempt to get them deleted through due process - but hey, how much of
the traffic come from our site?" Then things get a bit amusing. The
thing is, about 60% of the traffic originates from Wikimedia Commons and
with the additional internal traffic generated from this we probably
generates over 80% of the traffic on the site. This isn't neglible
amouths of traffic on a site, removing the images on Commons would pull
the plug on the majority of the traffic.

So the situation are they said they would not claim copyright on their
own copies of works in public domain. The wording in Norwegian is
slightly different but the net effect is about the same. They would
although forward any claim on copyright that isn't in the public domain
as no doing that would put them in an awkward position. Photographers
that are clearly dead early enough for the law to apply would not be a
problem, that is Axel Lindahl.[2] Photographers that died later and are
in the "snapshot category" compared to the "work of art" are difficult.
Typically this is Anders Beer Wilse.[3] The fist has a shorter time
limit before they go into public domain. Our "understanding" is that we
may claim a photo to be a snapshot but we may get a notice that a
specific image is a work of art. In that case - woopsie, our fault, we
start the process to remove it, no problem. We can't although get a
written statement upfront from them wetter a specific photo is a
snapshot or not simply because they are not in a position to make such a
statement, its something the heirs has to agree upon, and probably the
court if so. In that case we have more than enogh time to remove the images.

As a note, for the moment there is quite a lot of images uploaded that
are taken by Wilse, and I think they should be carefully examined to
verify that none of them are in the category "work of art". It would be
a shame if we upload images that creates trouble between us and NB/NF.
Probably we need a writeup about some general guidelines, but if we can
do without such a guideline it would be better.

NB/NF are asked if they want to join us in some future talks about how
such images can be better utilized. For them it is a real bonus to get
the traffic, especially that the images are of fixed resolution on
Commons, as that makes it possible for them to add services to their own
site, like selling copies of higher resolution. Sometimes it seems like
people forget that we must cooperate with the museums and galleries to
create a win-win -situation.

One of the things they are very eager on is to be able to add additional
information to the images. When we add photos to an article on Wikipedia
that will create additional information about it. Admins on Commons
isn't very eager to utilize that additional information, but that is a
prime selling point for those kind of pictures. I guess we need to
really rethink how we can utilize the new world of mashable sites. How
can GalleriNOR rip out the information we add to the images and reuse
that on their own site?

A few days ago there was a contest in the newspaper (website only) ABC
Nyheter where photos by Carl Curman owned by Riksantikvarieämbetet was
localized.[4] Those images were from about 1890. Within hours they were
pinpointed to locations in Valdres, Norway. This is extremely valuable
for museums as images suddenly become part of history.

[1]http://www.nb.no/gallerinor/
[2]http://www.nb.no/gallerinor/fotografer/lindal.php
[3]http://www.nb.no/gallerinor/fotografer/ab_wilse.php
[4]http://www.abcnyheter.no/node/90741

John Erling Blad
Wikimedia Norway

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

David Gerard-2
2009/7/11 John at Darkstar <[hidden email]>:

> In the case of GalleriNOR several people uploaded images from the site
> without prior agreement with neither NB nor NF. After a while I get in
> touch with them and asked how we should handle the case, what people
> believed was the right thing to do from our side and what NB and NF
> wanted to do. First the stand was established as "the images must be
> deleted" and "we don't want to delete them", then we said "okey we will
> attempt to get them deleted through due process - but hey, how much of
> the traffic come from our site?" Then things get a bit amusing. The
> thing is, about 60% of the traffic originates from Wikimedia Commons and
> with the additional internal traffic generated from this we probably
> generates over 80% of the traffic on the site. This isn't neglible
> amouths of traffic on a site, removing the images on Commons would pull
> the plug on the majority of the traffic.


:-D

We should ask the NPG about their website traffic ;-)

Do all NPG images have a link back? They should.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

Yann Forget-2
David Gerard wrote:

> 2009/7/11 John at Darkstar <[hidden email]>:
>
>> In the case of GalleriNOR several people uploaded images from the site
>> without prior agreement with neither NB nor NF. After a while I get in
>> touch with them and asked how we should handle the case, what people
>> believed was the right thing to do from our side and what NB and NF
>> wanted to do. First the stand was established as "the images must be
>> deleted" and "we don't want to delete them", then we said "okey we will
>> attempt to get them deleted through due process - but hey, how much of
>> the traffic come from our site?" Then things get a bit amusing. The
>> thing is, about 60% of the traffic originates from Wikimedia Commons and
>> with the additional internal traffic generated from this we probably
>> generates over 80% of the traffic on the site. This isn't neglible
>> amouths of traffic on a site, removing the images on Commons would pull
>> the plug on the majority of the traffic.
>
> :-D
>
> We should ask the NPG about their website traffic ;-)

Well, their site had a problem after the story has appeared on Slashdot.

> Do all NPG images have a link back? They should.

Yes, they have a link with this template
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:SourceNPGLondon

> - d.

Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

Tom Maaswinkel
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
Isn't it the best thing to remove the images, like they demand, and let
someone from the UK Wikimedia foundation contact them about the part where
they are saying "Our client remains willing to enter into a dialogue with
the Wikimedia Foundation to discuss terms upon which low-resolution images
of paintings in its collection can be made available on the Wikipedia
website and our client will continue to write to the Wikimedia Foundation
with requests for discussion. However, to date, the Wikimedia Foundation has
ignored our client’s attempts to negotiate this issue, preferring instead to
take a more harsh approach that one would expect of a corporate entity."...
It looks to me they want to do it for free, if you put some notice amongst
the picture.

They only thing that I don't understand is that they claim that no-one from
the wikimedia foundation ever responded to this. Is there any reason for
this?

2009/7/11 David Gerard <[hidden email]>

> 2009/7/11 John at Darkstar <[hidden email]>:
>
> > In the case of GalleriNOR several people uploaded images from the site
> > without prior agreement with neither NB nor NF. After a while I get in
> > touch with them and asked how we should handle the case, what people
> > believed was the right thing to do from our side and what NB and NF
> > wanted to do. First the stand was established as "the images must be
> > deleted" and "we don't want to delete them", then we said "okey we will
> > attempt to get them deleted through due process - but hey, how much of
> > the traffic come from our site?" Then things get a bit amusing. The
> > thing is, about 60% of the traffic originates from Wikimedia Commons and
> > with the additional internal traffic generated from this we probably
> > generates over 80% of the traffic on the site. This isn't neglible
> > amouths of traffic on a site, removing the images on Commons would pull
> > the plug on the majority of the traffic.
>
>
> :-D
>
> We should ask the NPG about their website traffic ;-)
>
> Do all NPG images have a link back? They should.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

David Gerard-2
2009/7/11 Tom Maaswinkel <[hidden email]>:

> Isn't it the best thing to remove the images, like they demand, and let
> someone from the UK Wikimedia foundation contact them about the part where
> they are saying "Our client remains willing to enter into a dialogue with
> the Wikimedia Foundation to discuss terms upon which low-resolution images
> of paintings in its collection can be made available on the Wikipedia
> website and our client will continue to write to the Wikimedia Foundation
> with requests for discussion. However, to date, the Wikimedia Foundation has
> ignored our client’s attempts to negotiate this issue, preferring instead to
> take a more harsh approach that one would expect of a corporate entity."...
> It looks to me they want to do it for free, if you put some notice amongst
> the picture.


This is something to ask directly.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Tom Maaswinkel
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Tom Maaswinkel<[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip]
> They only thing that I don't understand is that they claim that no-one from
> the wikimedia foundation ever responded to this. Is there any reason for
> this?

That isn't what they claimed.

They claimed:
"Our client contacted the Wikimedia Foundation in April 2009 to
request that the images be removed but the Wikimedia Foundation has
refused to do so […]"

The initial complaint (OTRS #2009060110061897 for those with access)
was made by a commercial partner (in the US) of the NPG, and was the
typically legally uninformed nonsense that comes in often enough to
have a boilerplate reply. They were given the standard "Wikimedia and
it's servers are based in the US. Under US law such images are public
domain per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Therefore no
permission is
required to use them." response.  Presumably the commercial vendor got
the NPG to make the legal threat under UK law because we adequately
expressed that there was clearly no copyright concern under US law.


They also stated:
"However, to date, the Wikimedia Foundation has ignored our client’s
attempts to negotiate this issue, preferring instead to take a more
harsh approach that one would expect of a corporate entity."

Please— allow me to translate:  "We're confused. We're used to dealing
with organizations like YouTube who will roll over instantly even for
the most obvious cases of CopyFraud. Why wont you play along with our
effort to lock up and monetize the public domain?"

Thank you, Wikimedia Foundation, for not being yet another Web 2.0 get
rich quick scheme.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

Gregory Maxwell
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Gregory Maxwell<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Tom Maaswinkel<[hidden email]> wrote:
> [snip]
>> They only thing that I don't understand is that they claim that no-one from
>> the wikimedia foundation ever responded to this. Is there any reason for
>> this?
>
> That isn't what they claimed.
>
> They claimed:
> "Our client contacted the Wikimedia Foundation in April 2009 to
> request that the images be removed but the Wikimedia Foundation has
> refused to do so […]"
>
> The initial complaint (OTRS #2009060110061897 for those with access)
> was made by a commercial partner (in the US) of the NPG, and was the
> typically legally uninformed nonsense that comes in often enough to
> have a boilerplate reply. They were given the standard "Wikimedia and
> it's servers are based in the US. Under US law such images are public
> domain per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Therefore no
> permission is
> required to use them." response.  Presumably the commercial vendor got
> the NPG to make the legal threat under UK law because we adequately
> expressed that there was clearly no copyright concern under US law.


For clarity sake I should point out that the neither the complaint to
Wikimedia, nor the response to the OTRS reply, included any offer of
compromise.

In the past these kinds of arrangements have been negotiated. But
escalating with legal force makes a sham of any good faith effort to
negotiate, sadly.

As a practical matter, and a matter of principle, we can't accept that
people can take exclusive ownership of the public domain simply by
performing a little dance. Nor can we accept that UK law can be
imposed on the Wikimedia Foundation or its US contributors, as under
UK law our projects could likely not exist for a even day.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

Gregory Maxwell
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Gregory Maxwell<[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip]
> For clarity sake I should point out that the neither the complaint to
> Wikimedia, nor the response to the OTRS reply, included any offer of
> compromise.

Also worth mentioning is that a copyright complaint by the NPG in 2006
where the initial response from our side was "What we're doing is
permitted by US law" was satisfactorily resolved by providing
attribution and back-links on the image page.

I suspect the increasing number of commercial partnerships to provide
access to PD works is moving the bar and sending some webtraffic and
attribution is no longer competitive with with others are able to
offer providing that the content can be locked up and exclusive access
assured.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

Geoffrey Plourde
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
What an insult, Derrick only rates a solicitor




________________________________
From: Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 3:17:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Tom Maaswinkel<[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip]
> They only thing that I don't understand is that they claim that no-one from
> the wikimedia foundation ever responded to this. Is there any reason for
> this?

That isn't what they claimed.

They claimed:
"Our client contacted the Wikimedia Foundation in April 2009 to
request that the images be removed but the Wikimedia Foundation has
refused to do so […]"

The initial complaint (OTRS #2009060110061897 for those with access)
was made by a commercial partner (in the US) of the NPG, and was the
typically legally uninformed nonsense that comes in often enough to
have a boilerplate reply. They were given the standard "Wikimedia and
it's servers are based in the US. Under US law such images are public
domain per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Therefore no
permission is
required to use them." response.  Presumably the commercial vendor got
the NPG to make the legal threat under UK law because we adequately
expressed that there was clearly no copyright concern under US law.


They also stated:
"However, to date, the Wikimedia Foundation has ignored our client’s
attempts to negotiate this issue, preferring instead to take a more
harsh approach that one would expect of a corporate entity."

Please— allow me to translate:  "We're confused. We're used to dealing
with organizations like YouTube who will roll over instantly even for
the most obvious cases of CopyFraud. Why wont you play along with our
effort to lock up and monetize the public domain?"

Thank you, Wikimedia Foundation, for not being yet another Web 2.0 get
rich quick scheme.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



     
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Please explain why would Derrick rate a solicitor ?
Thanks,
      GerardM

2009/7/12 Geoffrey Plourde <[hidden email]>

> What an insult, Derrick only rates a solicitor
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 3:17:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the
> NationalPortrait Gallery ...
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Tom Maaswinkel<[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> [snip]
> > They only thing that I don't understand is that they claim that no-one
> from
> > the wikimedia foundation ever responded to this. Is there any reason for
> > this?
>
> That isn't what they claimed.
>
> They claimed:
> "Our client contacted the Wikimedia Foundation in April 2009 to
> request that the images be removed but the Wikimedia Foundation has
> refused to do so […]"
>
> The initial complaint (OTRS #2009060110061897 for those with access)
> was made by a commercial partner (in the US) of the NPG, and was the
> typically legally uninformed nonsense that comes in often enough to
> have a boilerplate reply. They were given the standard "Wikimedia and
> it's servers are based in the US. Under US law such images are public
> domain per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Therefore no
> permission is
> required to use them." response.  Presumably the commercial vendor got
> the NPG to make the legal threat under UK law because we adequately
> expressed that there was clearly no copyright concern under US law.
>
>
> They also stated:
> "However, to date, the Wikimedia Foundation has ignored our client’s
> attempts to negotiate this issue, preferring instead to take a more
> harsh approach that one would expect of a corporate entity."
>
> Please— allow me to translate:  "We're confused. We're used to dealing
> with organizations like YouTube who will roll over instantly even for
> the most obvious cases of CopyFraud. Why wont you play along with our
> effort to lock up and monetize the public domain?"
>
> Thank you, Wikimedia Foundation, for not being yet another Web 2.0 get
> rich quick scheme.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

James Forrester-5
In reply to this post by Geoffrey Plourde
2009/7/12 Geoffrey Plourde <[hidden email]>:
> What an insult, Derrick only rates a solicitor

As opposed to a barrister? You're mistaken; solicitors would be
involved in such matters before going to court. Barristers would only
be instructed by the solicitors when they were going to court (or,
conceivably, to consider a point of law; hiring an expensive silk for
a day can be a relatively cheap way of settling such points).


J.
--
James D. Forrester
[hidden email] | [hidden email]
[[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

Tom Maaswinkel
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
2009/7/12 Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]>
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Tom Maaswinkel<tom.maaswinkel@

>
> 12wiki.eu> wrote:
> [snip]
> > They only thing that I don't understand is that they claim that no-one
> from
> > the wikimedia foundation ever responded to this. Is there any reason for
> > this?
>
> That isn't what they claimed.
>
> They claimed:
> "Our client contacted the Wikimedia Foundation in April 2009 to
> request that the images be removed but the Wikimedia Foundation has
> refused to do so […]"


The part I am talking about is the part where they say that they want to
talk to the Wikimedia Fundation to have a discussion about making
low-resolution images of paintings in its collection available!


2009/7/12 Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]>

> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Tom Maaswinkel<[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> [snip]
> > They only thing that I don't understand is that they claim that no-one
> from
> > the wikimedia foundation ever responded to this. Is there any reason for
> > this?
>
> That isn't what they claimed.
>
> They claimed:
> "Our client contacted the Wikimedia Foundation in April 2009 to
> request that the images be removed but the Wikimedia Foundation has
> refused to do so […]"
>
> The initial complaint (OTRS #2009060110061897 for those with access)
> was made by a commercial partner (in the US) of the NPG, and was the
> typically legally uninformed nonsense that comes in often enough to
> have a boilerplate reply. They were given the standard "Wikimedia and
> it's servers are based in the US. Under US law such images are public
> domain per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Therefore no
> permission is
> required to use them." response.  Presumably the commercial vendor got
> the NPG to make the legal threat under UK law because we adequately
> expressed that there was clearly no copyright concern under US law.
>
>
> They also stated:
> "However, to date, the Wikimedia Foundation has ignored our client’s
> attempts to negotiate this issue, preferring instead to take a more
> harsh approach that one would expect of a corporate entity."
>
> Please— allow me to translate:  "We're confused. We're used to dealing
> with organizations like YouTube who will roll over instantly even for
> the most obvious cases of CopyFraud. Why wont you play along with our
> effort to lock up and monetize the public domain?"
>
> Thank you, Wikimedia Foundation, for not being yet another Web 2.0 get
> rich quick scheme.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

Robert Rohde
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Tom Maaswinkel<[hidden email]> wrote:
> The part I am talking about is the part where they say that they want to
> talk to the Wikimedia Fundation to have a discussion about making
> low-resolution images of paintings in its collection available!

Incidentally, the NPG appears to have removed the zoomify feature from
their website (or at least it wasn't present on the sample of images I
looked at).  As a result, it would appear that WMF presently has more
detailed images on Commons than are available in any form on NPG's
website.  In the typical case, our images appear to be 3 or 4 times
larger in linear dimension than the largest view they currently make
available.

-Robert Rohde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

David Gerard-2
2009/7/12 Robert Rohde <[hidden email]>:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Tom Maaswinkel<[hidden email]> wrote:

>> The part I am talking about is the part where they say that they want to
>> talk to the Wikimedia Fundation to have a discussion about making
>> low-resolution images of paintings in its collection available!

> Incidentally, the NPG appears to have removed the zoomify feature from
> their website (or at least it wasn't present on the sample of images I
> looked at).  As a result, it would appear that WMF presently has more
> detailed images on Commons than are available in any form on NPG's
> website.  In the typical case, our images appear to be 3 or 4 times
> larger in linear dimension than the largest view they currently make
> available.


Oh, that's good. "We had to destroy the images to propagate them."


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

Sage Ross
A Wikipedia Signpost article intended to recount the facts and context
of the legal threat is in progress:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-07-13/Copyright_threat

Comments, suggestions, and contributions are welcome.  In particular,
there is some discussion on the talk page of a few issues where more
input would be helpful.

Cheers,
Sage (User:Ragesoss)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

Dan Collins-2
In reply to this post by Robert Rohde
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Robert Rohde<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Tom Maaswinkel<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> The part I am talking about is the part where they say that they want to
>> talk to the Wikimedia Fundation to have a discussion about making
>> low-resolution images of paintings in its collection available!
>
> Incidentally, the NPG appears to have removed the zoomify feature from
> their website (or at least it wasn't present on the sample of images I
> looked at).  As a result, it would appear that WMF presently has more
> detailed images on Commons than are available in any form on NPG's
> website.  In the typical case, our images appear to be 3 or 4 times
> larger in linear dimension than the largest view they currently make
> available.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I don't suppose anyone has a mirror of our copies, just in case
Foundation decides to comply with NPG's demands (a long shot, for
sure)? Probably be best to make sure this information isn't lost,
especially since NPG has now made the high-res images unavailable to
anyone.

--Dan

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12