QUOTE(Giano @ Tue 14th July 2009, 11:51am)
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 14th July 2009, 10:42am)
Having read the
earlier letter, I was struck by the helpful tone.
What is absolutely disgraceful is that the NPG is quite willing to let its efforts be used for free in a suitable form, but Wikipedia wants more and steals it.
The freedophiles would do well to read the simple examples which make it clear that the NPG are not being unreasonable and not seeking to keep public domain information out of the public domain.
What a bunch of tossers. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)
I too, was struck by the helpful tone - it seems the foundation is behaving in an arrogant fashion and unprepared to reach a compromise.
Goano
I agree. The smaller lo-res pictures are entirely adequate and the NPG has been helpful.
I'm not quite sure what happens with pictures from the National Gallery or in France from the databases Atlas (Louvre) and Joconde (all of France). The detail in the hi-res NPG paintings is absolutely astonishing: I haven't seen anything equivalent in French Collections. I'm also a little worried now about how copyright issues might apply to the enormous collection of prints, again photographed in extraordinary detail, on the British Museum website.