QUOTE(Cedric @ Tue 14th July 2009, 1:42pm)
The MSM
is finally on the story.
EDIT: "A spokesman for Wikipedia was not available for comment." Was he dead drunk, or did Jimbo issue a STFU order to our favorite superannuated goth and weird hairpiece model? (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)
Gerard seems to have tempered his earlier rallying cries for Wikipedians to do a spot of "skulldancing"* against the Portrait Gallery.
Here he starts to ponder the potential problems the case provides.
QUOTE(Skulldancer Gerard)
Ideal outcome: PD everything, they welcome a team of our photographers in.
Plausible good outcome: We put up the hi-res images with notes that they are PD in the US but the NPG claims copyright in Europe and releases them under copyleft, and full credit is requested in either case. (Copyleft is not as ideal as PD, but it’s plenty good enough for us.) We issue press releases lauding the NPG to the skies and say nice things about them forever.
Another plausible good outcome: They welcome a team of our photographers in. Careful supervision, etc. Then we can do stuff like infrared shots as well (which can show interesting things about a painting’s restoration history).
Awful outcome: great big legal and public relations battle. Even if we or they win, we both lose.
Bad outcome: mainstream press about this at all, really. It will hamper our efforts with other museums. The NPG probably doesn’t see it that way.
(* So named during the
Virgin Killer controversy. After Gerard appeared on the TV and radio as WMF spokesman to defend Wikipedia, he gleefully called for Wikipedians to "dance on the skulls of the IWF")