QUOTE
Originally posted by Kato post Yesterday, 9:14am:
I suspect that the letter from the NPG's lawyers is a speculative threat, and they don't really have a case.
It's probable the letter partly or entirely was a speculative threat; it may have been a procedural prelude to intended action, in the line of courts requiring claimants show they have made efforts to resolve a matter without proceedings, like having sent a letter.
The demand in the letter to "
c) permanently delete from the hard drive of your computer (or any computer upon which you or anyone from the Wikiemedia Foundation have stored them) all images that you have derived from our client’s website;" is ... lets say...impractical. Even assuming the Wikiemedia Foundation (sic) refers to salaried employees, it would require the letter recipient to exercise access over
their computer hard drives.
The last requirement is perhaps the most bizarre "
(g) refrain in the future from breaching any of the terms of use on our client’s website." Unenforceable. No organization can enforce terms they make up and publish on their website in law. The website creator is not a law-making body.
As well as saying the Wikimedia Foundation (which they managed to spell correctly after a few tries!) has not caved in to the demand to do what the demander wants, they go on to make a specific accusation of obstructiveness beyond what one would expect of <quote>"a corporate entity"</quote>. Wikimedia Foundation Inc., under the laws of Florida, USA, is a tax exempt "non-profit charitable" organization.
The slightly sinister "
request [to] respond to this request by email ...provid[ing your] valid email and postal addresses" is supplied with the statement that they are able to "
communicat[e] with you [using] the Wikipedia mail service", but, for some unknown reason, somehow "
[i]t would be far more efficient" by "email".
This post has been edited by Supine: