QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sat 11th July 2009, 6:17pm)
It's a public service. Maybe this is the crux of the issue. In the U.S., we expect our public services to serve the public. The National Portrait Gallery is a public service funded by taxpayer money.
What difference does this make? Is the public (or whoever owns the original) supposed to waste money photographing their collection and then releasing it all for free? Or would it make more sense for the public to benefit from the licensing of the images? Indeed, would not the public, as interested in the efficient use of their taxes, more or less expect the NPG to act as it is acting now?