|
The National Portrait Gallery Threatens Litigation, Big Oops for WMF? |
|
|
|
|
Replies
Kato |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
I heard a Wikipedia Weekly podcast a while back where they discussed a similar incident. The Wikipedio was threatened with legal action for copying photographs of non-copyrighted artwork, but the threat was toothless and merely designed to put people off. The podcast was naturally in favor of the Wikipedio (big free culture activists and all that) and they seemed to agree that the Gallery had no right to threaten to sue over photographs of non-copyrighted material. They seemed to know what they were talking about as well. However, this section of this claim interests me: QUOTE There is a common misconception that, as a result of the decision in Bridgeman v. Corel, copyright can never subsist in a photograph of a painting. That conclusion is erroneous because:
1. the judgment in Bridgeman v. Corel is a decision of the US Courts and therefore, whilst it might amount to a precedent under US law, it has no effect under UK law; and
2. in the UK, whilst the precise circumstances that gave rise to the Bridgeman v. Corel litigation have never been the subject matter of a claim decided before the UK Courts, practicing lawyers and legal academics alike generally agree that under a UK law analysis the judgment in Bridgeman v. Corel is wrong and that copyright can subsist in a photograph of a painting.
For the avoidance of doubt, the allegation of copyright infringement made against you below is an allegation under UK law. Furthermore, we can confirm that every one of the images that you have copied is the product of a painstaking exercise on the part of the photographer that created the image in which significant time, skill, effort and artistry have been employed and that there can therefore be no doubt that under UK law all of those images are copyright works under s.1(1)(a) of the CDPA. Whether the Wikipedios end up being in the clear or not legally, the bolded section (if true), says to me that National Portrait Gallery are morally entitled to press a case. (update) QUOTE(Limey @ Sat 11th July 2009, 3:26am) Naturally some idiot of an admin came along to block the account used to send the email immediately per WP:NLT. Yea... I hadn't read that when I posted the above, and was going to post something similar as a joke, "I bet they block the National Portrait Gallery for making legal threats!" etc. GeorgeWilliamHerbert, the blocking admin, has long been identified here as one of the stupidiest figures Wikipedia has produced. Everything he does is preposterously wrong, and I once advised that his posts should be accompanied by the Laurel and Hardy theme tune.
|
|
|
|
TungstenCarbide |
|
Allegedly shot down by stray Ukrainian missile
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,405
Joined:
Member No.: 10,787
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 11th July 2009, 3:24am) I heard a Wikipedia Weekly podcast a while back where they discussed a similar incident. The Wikipedio was threatened with legal action for copying photographs of non-copyrighted artwork, but the threat was toothless and merely designed to put people off. The podcast was naturally in favor of the Wikipedio (big free culture activists and all that) and they seemed to agree that the Gallery had no right to threaten to sue over photographs of non-copyrighted material. They seemed to know what they were talking about as well. However, this section of this claim interests me: QUOTE There is a common misconception that, as a result of the decision in Bridgeman v. Corel, copyright can never subsist in a photograph of a painting. That conclusion is erroneous because:
1. the judgment in Bridgeman v. Corel is a decision of the US Courts and therefore, whilst it might amount to a precedent under US law, it has no effect under UK law; and
2. in the UK, whilst the precise circumstances that gave rise to the Bridgeman v. Corel litigation have never been the subject matter of a claim decided before the UK Courts, practicing lawyers and legal academics alike generally agree that under a UK law analysis the judgment in Bridgeman v. Corel is wrong and that copyright can subsist in a photograph of a painting.
For the avoidance of doubt, the allegation of copyright infringement made against you below is an allegation under UK law. Furthermore, we can confirm that every one of the images that you have copied is the product of a painstaking exercise on the part of the photographer that created the image in which significant time, skill, effort and artistry have been employed and that there can therefore be no doubt that under UK law all of those images are copyright works under s.1(1)(a) of the CDPA. Whether the Wikipedios end up being in the clear or not legally, the bolded section (if true), says to me that National Portrait Gallery are morally entitled to press a case. Nah, no moral justification. They might be legally entitled to bring a test case, but under no stretch of the imagination are they morally entitled. The copyrights on those paintings are expired. Nobody looks at them to admire the photographer's skill, and there is no moral justification for making money off the work of some guy who died 300 years ago. The skillful photographer copier angle is a weak technicality that doesn't follow the spirit of copyright law.
|
|
|
|
TungstenCarbide |
|
Allegedly shot down by stray Ukrainian missile
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,405
Joined:
Member No.: 10,787
|
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 11th July 2009, 3:45am) QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Fri 10th July 2009, 9:40pm)
Nah, no moral justification. They might be legally entitled to bring a test case, but under no stretch of the imagination are they morally entitled. The copyrights on those paintings are expired. Nobody looks at them to admire the photographer's skill, and there is no moral justification for making money off the work of some guy who died 300 years ago. The skillful photographer copier angle is a weak technicality that doesn't follow the spirit of copyright law.
I'm no expert on copyright but I quite certain the act of creation they are concerned with is the photograph of the painting, not the painting itself. The case cited would appear to make this not protected under US copyright law. But their point is "this is London calling..." I agree, legally speaking. But the Gallery is trying to use the 'photographers skill' to gain the value of the artist's original work. Maybe that's doable in UK law, i don't know, but I think it's morally wrong. Nobody's interested in the photographer's skill, they are interested in the artists painting. If it was a crappy photo it'd still be used if nothing else was available. This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:
|
|
|
|
dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(Random832 @ Tue 14th July 2009, 3:42pm) QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 11th July 2009, 4:11am) It takes time and money to produce quality reproductions of artworks. Requiring time and money should not be sufficient for copyright. I don't think you get it (though I think to be fair that Kato's partial quote does not capture the essence of the principle of skill as well). The point is, that it is not the image that is copyright, it is the particular rendition of the image, or images derived from that rendition that is copyright. The example given of Shakespeare's works makes the principle clear: you can put Shakespeare into print by copying the words out, or by photocopying an old out of copyright version. However, if someone does the Luxury All Original Reader's Digest Large Print Complete Works of Shakespeare, it is reasonable that someone should not be able to come along and make a direct facsimile of that new work - as there would then be no point in putting the effort in to creating such works. There have been several suggestions that somehow the production of a new work somehow makes the old works less available - it does not, it is purely the new work that is protected, and the UK law recognises that there can be worth in producing a new work of such value that it should be copyrighted. The other example, say the Boston Pops Orchestra produce a new version of Beethoven's 5th. Do they lose the ability to gain copyright in their recordings because the source score is out of copyright? As also has been pointed out, the WikiMedia licence granted is so wide in what it allows, that no sane person would ever allow an image of value to be subject to it. I would think that the NPG would be in breach of their mission if they allowed images in their care to be licensed for pornographic use - for example they have pictures of the Royal Family and it would be a national scandal if they were found to have licensed images that were then used in some abusive manner.
|
|
|
|
Eva Destruction |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined:
Member No.: 3,301
|
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 14th July 2009, 5:42pm) As also has been pointed out, the WikiMedia licence granted is so wide in what it allows, that no sane person would ever allow an image of value to be subject to it. I would think that the NPG would be in breach of their mission if they allowed images in their care to be licensed for pornographic use - for example they have pictures of the Royal Family and it would be a national scandal if they were found to have licensed images that were then used in some abusive manner.
That isn't relevant to this particular case, which is about whether the NPG's photographing the works creates a new work. Under UK law (s.62 of the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988, if you want chapter and verse) any work on permanent public display is exempt from copyright – if someone were to somehow take their own camera into the gallery and get permission to photograph the works in the permanent collection, they would be in their rights to release their own photographs into the public domain, even were the works recently painted and still copyrighted. This post has been edited by Eva Destruction:
|
|
|
|
One |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined:
Member No.: 4,284
|
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 14th July 2009, 5:21pm) QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 14th July 2009, 5:42pm) As also has been pointed out, the WikiMedia licence granted is so wide in what it allows, that no sane person would ever allow an image of value to be subject to it. I would think that the NPG would be in breach of their mission if they allowed images in their care to be licensed for pornographic use - for example they have pictures of the Royal Family and it would be a national scandal if they were found to have licensed images that were then used in some abusive manner.
That isn't relevant to this particular case, which is about whether the NPG's photographing the works creates a new work. Under UK law (s.62 of the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988, if you want chapter and verse) any work on permanent public display is exempt from copyright – if someone were to somehow take their own camera into the gallery and get permission to photograph the works in the permanent collection, they would be in their rights to release their own photographs into the public domain, even were the works recently painted and still copyrighted. It actually says that " copyright in such a work is not infringed," and is silent about whether these derivative works are copyright themselves. Not clear what "artistic craftsmanship" means, but I think that this section refers to three-dimensional works; they don't want people to assert infringement for filming in buildings with distinctive features. This post has been edited by One:
|
|
|
|
Eva Destruction |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined:
Member No.: 3,301
|
QUOTE(One @ Tue 14th July 2009, 6:44pm) QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 14th July 2009, 5:21pm) QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 14th July 2009, 5:42pm) As also has been pointed out, the WikiMedia licence granted is so wide in what it allows, that no sane person would ever allow an image of value to be subject to it. I would think that the NPG would be in breach of their mission if they allowed images in their care to be licensed for pornographic use - for example they have pictures of the Royal Family and it would be a national scandal if they were found to have licensed images that were then used in some abusive manner.
That isn't relevant to this particular case, which is about whether the NPG's photographing the works creates a new work. Under UK law (s.62 of the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988, if you want chapter and verse) any work on permanent public display is exempt from copyright – if someone were to somehow take their own camera into the gallery and get permission to photograph the works in the permanent collection, they would be in their rights to release their own photographs into the public domain, even were the works recently painted and still copyrighted. What a bizarre reading. It actually says that " copyright in such a work is not infringed," and is silent about whether these derivative works are copyright themselves. There's copyright in the original, however, but that certain enumerated uses are not infringing. Well, the Official Jimbo Approved Interpretation of CDPA88 §62 is "Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 […] allows photographers to take pictures of buildings, and sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public) without breaching copyright. Such photographs may be published in any way. […] The practical effect of the broad Freedom of Panorama provisions in the UK and in other countries with similar laws is that it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in museums, galleries and exhibitions which are open to the public." (my emphasis). Which AFAIK is what I said. This post has been edited by Eva Destruction:
|
|
|
|
One |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined:
Member No.: 4,284
|
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 14th July 2009, 5:54pm) QUOTE(One @ Tue 14th July 2009, 6:44pm) QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 14th July 2009, 5:21pm) QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 14th July 2009, 5:42pm) As also has been pointed out, the WikiMedia licence granted is so wide in what it allows, that no sane person would ever allow an image of value to be subject to it. I would think that the NPG would be in breach of their mission if they allowed images in their care to be licensed for pornographic use - for example they have pictures of the Royal Family and it would be a national scandal if they were found to have licensed images that were then used in some abusive manner.
That isn't relevant to this particular case, which is about whether the NPG's photographing the works creates a new work. Under UK law (s.62 of the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988, if you want chapter and verse) any work on permanent public display is exempt from copyright – if someone were to somehow take their own camera into the gallery and get permission to photograph the works in the permanent collection, they would be in their rights to release their own photographs into the public domain, even were the works recently painted and still copyrighted. What a bizarre reading. It actually says that " copyright in such a work is not infringed," and is silent about whether these derivative works are copyright themselves. There's copyright in the original, however, but that certain enumerated uses are not infringing. Well, the Official Jimbo Approved Interpretation of CDPA88 §62 is "Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 […] allows photographers to take pictures of buildings, and sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public) without breaching copyright. Such photographs may be published in any way. […] The practical effect of the broad Freedom of Panorama provisions in the UK and in other countries with similar laws is that it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in museums, galleries and exhibitions which are open to the public." Which AFAIK is what I said. No, you said they were public domain, which is different. Digging into this deeper, I don't think that paintings are "works of artistic craftsmanship." The code first uses that term in section 4, listing it separately from graphic works and photographs. This page implies that the term applies to craft features. It sort of makes sense why these would be exempted; otherwise, one could argue that shooting a film with distinctive woodwork in the background is infringement. Edit: Actually, it looks like you're just flat wrong, Eva Destruction. Where did you get this theory? Read some more of the Jimbo-approved document: QUOTE Note that under UK law, works of artistic craftsmanship fall into a different copyright category from graphic works such as paintings, photographs, drawings and the like. The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works (which will typically be two-dimensional) such as paintings, murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters or signs. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder even if they are permanently located in a public place. This post has been edited by One:
|
|
|
|
Posts in this topic
Limey The National Portrait Gallery Threatens Litigation GlassBeadGame
See the letter issued by solicitors for the UK Na... Limey
Whether the Wikipedios end up being in the clear... Kato
Hopefully, the user involved just deletes all the... EricBarbour Hopefully, the user involved just deletes all the ... GlassBeadGame
I heard a Wikipedia Weekly podcast a while back w... No one of consequence
The National Portrait Gallery is a substantial in... Kato
But the WMF is in the US. Is there such a thing ... Push the button
...a radical and essentially right wing agenda to... No one of consequence
[quote name='No one of consequence' post='183073'... Kato
Isn't [url=http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/... GlassBeadGame
[quote name='No one of consequence' post='183073... taiwopanfob But it should only be available to people who can ... No one of consequence
[quote name='No one of consequence' post='183078'... taiwopanfob
[quote name='taiwopanfob' post='183090' date='Sat... GlassBeadGame March 2009, without our client’s consent, y... taiwopanfob In any event maybe the "free culture" fa... One
I'm going to ignore your irrelevant strawman ... Sarcasticidealist I'm no expert on copyright but I quit certain ... EricBarbour It takes time and money to produce quality reprodu... Kato
(crap, having trouble finding threads about bad h... TungstenCarbide
I agree, legally speaking.
But think about it ... Peter Damian
You seem to be pouring doubt and scorn on the cla... TungstenCarbide
You seem to be pouring doubt and scorn on the cl... Push the button
Why should it be so for a photograph of a masterp... standixon If I take a photograph, don't I own the copyri... Push the button
If I take a photograph, don't I own the copyr... Kato
Where the hell is NYB when we need him.
NYB is u... TungstenCarbide
[quote name='TungstenCarbide' post='183056' date=... Kato
And the National Gallery is making money off of d... Kato
I suspect that the letter from the NPG's lawy... TungstenCarbide [quote name='TungstenCarbide' post='183289' date='... GlassBeadGame
against someone residing in the US, about server... Peter Damian
It also takes skill and expensive equipment to ma... Push the button
On the supposedly complex legal situation, the le... taiwopanfob
Where's the originality in a photograph which... No one of consequence
Where's the originality in a photograph whic... Peter Damian
No, please see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Co... taiwopanfob No, please see [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... TungstenCarbide
It also takes skill and expensive equipment to m... taiwopanfob The national gallery is trying to say the photogra... Kato
[quote name='TungstenCarbide' post='183260' date=... GlassBeadGame
Yes, there is a creativity requirement for copyr... TungstenCarbide
[quote name='TungstenCarbide' post='183260' date=... dogbiscuit
[quote name='Peter Damian' post='183070' date='Sa... taiwopanfob The other example, say the Boston Pops Orchestra p... Milton Roe
That isn't relevant to this particular case, ... Eva Destruction
[quote name='Eva Destruction' post='183862' date=... taiwopanfob
Well, the [url=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/... One
But Jimbo's reading is apparently incomplete.... dogbiscuit
As also has been pointed out, the WikiMedia lice... GlassBeadGame
[quote name='GlassBeadGame' post='183024' date='S... A Horse With No Name
GeorgeWilliamHerbert, the blocking admin, has lo... Jon Awbrey
[quote name='Kato' post='183017' date='Fri 10th J... Random832
Whether the Wikipedios end up being in the clear... Kato
[quote name='Kato' post='183017' date='Sat 11th J... JohnA Its just plagiarism, pure and simple. I bet those ... Limey FWIW. This is being discussed on Commons here: htt... dtobias Legally, the gallery might be right, at least in t... Jon Awbrey
Legally, the gallery might be right, at least in ... thekohser
All the ↑2d8 Libertaters have moved on to ... dogbiscuit
Legally, the gallery might be right, at least in ... Kato
In the UK, institutions like the National Portrai... sbrown Theres the point that aparently theyd gone to the ... Kato Here's the National Portrait Gallery's sta... No one of consequence
Good on them, but...
So, if I am affluent enough... Kato And do you think that people who stage Oscar Wild... Push the button
And do you think that people who stage Oscar Wil... Kato
[quote name='Kato' post='183085' date='Sat 11th J... Push the button
But many of the same moral ambiguities can be app... taiwopanfob NPG's reproductions, no matter how technically... Kato
But many of the same moral ambiguities can be ap... Cla68 I remember a few years ago I was dismayed to find ... No one of consequence
[quote name='No one of consequence' post='183081'... LessHorrid vanU
And do you think that people who stage Oscar Wil... Push the button
The Gallery's image licensing department rai... Peter Damian 'Wanker' Gerard chimes in
http://davidger... dtobias Interesting how to oppose a "right-wing corpo... LessHorrid vanU Thinking about this - and following a comment made... Grep Well this would all be extremely hilarious if it w... taiwopanfob Does Dcoetzee really think WMF will pay for his le... Push the button
Another good question: if Dcoetzee decides he do... MZMcBride Everybody agrees that the original images are in t... taiwopanfob The part I find amusing is that the NPG is deliber... MZMcBride
[quote name='MZMcBride' post='183132' date='Sat 1... taiwopanfob It's a public service. Maybe this is the crux ... Kato
I agree that the National Portrait Gallery should... dtobias Nobody has any business agreeing to things, in a s... Grep
Nobody has any business agreeing to things, in a ... dtobias In the U.S., anything produced by federal governme... tarantino All the NPG images on Commons have been tagged wit... GlassBeadGame
All the NPG images on Commons have been tagged wi... dogbiscuit It strikes me that the fundamental issue that the ... SB_Johnny I'm not sure what I think about this case, but... tarantino
I'm not sure what I think about this case, bu... thekohser
That is too funny. Once again, the Foundation l... zvook
[quote name='SB_Johnny' post='183228' date='Sun 1... The Wales Hunter The bypassing technical measures to obtain the ima... tarantino Lar has removed Dcoetzee's administrator right... taiwopanfob Lar has removed Dcoetzee's administrator right... dogbiscuit
Lar has removed Dcoetzee's administrator righ... Lar
[url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=... GlassBeadGame
[url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title... One
That wasn't why either.
I doubt that avoid... Lar
[quote name='GlassBeadGame' post='183352' date='S... GlassBeadGame
[quote name='GlassBeadGame' post='183352' date='... Lar
Yes I think I did something wrong with the post b... taiwopanfob I don't think that's true. They said they ... taiwopanfob Smart but wrong, eh? Ok, got it, thanks for cleari... GlassBeadGame
Hmm? He hopes they get medium res version to de... taiwopanfob [quote name='taiwopanfob' post='183337' date='Sun ... Apathetic Don't think I would've uploaded 'em in... GlassBeadGame
Don't think I would've uploaded 'em i... Apathetic
Don't think I would've uploaded 'em ... Cedric
Didn't I read earlier somewhere that NPG was ... taiwopanfob Think about this: why the hell does an online enc... Apathetic
But I have another question: exactly why can... taiwopanfob Well, properly licensed submissions are irrevocabl... Apathetic
Well, properly licensed submissions are irrevocab... taiwopanfob Someone who contributed a lot of useful content mi... tarantino GMaxwell's request pointed out that Dc was bei... Lar
So, where was the community discussion that ended... Cedric I am rather unsure of the strategy behind the lega... Kato
I am rather unsure of the strategy behind the leg... Cedric
I am rather unsure of the strategy behind the le... Kato On the desysopping:
So they've abandoned th... GlassBeadGame There has been difficulty in enforcing UK defamati... Selina http://www.npg.org.uk/about/FAQ/how-much-i...ction... Floydsvoid I'm not a lawyer but I have been on jury duty ... Eva Destruction
Poking around on [url=http://www.npg.org.uk/]http... dogbiscuit
Poking around on [url=http://www.npg.org.uk/]htt... Eva Destruction
[quote name='Eva Destruction' post='183371' date=... Malleus
Assuming I'm right about them having come fro... taiwopanfob On a personal note, I'm pissed off that I have... Milton Roe
Assuming I'm right about them having come fr... Eva Destruction
[quote name='Malleus' post='183395' date='Sun 12t... tarantino
[quote name='Floydsvoid' post='183366' date='Sun ... GlassBeadGame
[quote name='Floydsvoid' post='183366' date='Sun... Floydsvoid
Is it possible that "Dcoetzee" someho... tarantino
Oh, I missed the part about [url=http://www.zoom... Cedric I wonder if this guy is going to get a letter, too... Supine It's probable the letter partly or entirely wa... Peter Damian
The last requirement is perhaps the most bizarre ... Supine
[quote name='Supine' post='183401' date='Sun 12th... taiwopanfob The demand in the letter to "c) permanently d... Supine
All true! There are laws relating to trespass... taiwopanfob
All true! There are laws relating to trespas... GlassBeadGame
The last requirement is perhaps the most bizarre... Lar
Has anyone other than myself (and me only here) e... taiwopanfob
[quote name='GlassBeadGame' post='183408' date='S... Supine
[quote name='Supine' post='183401' date='Sun 12th... GlassBeadGame
[quote name='Supine' post='183401' date='Sun 12t... Supine
Of course to you the lawyers at Farrer & Co ... MZMcBride
Of course to you the lawyers at Farrer & Co a... Giano
Of course to you the lawyers at Farrer & Co ... GlassBeadGame
[quote name='MZMcBride' post='183434' date='Mon 1... dogbiscuit
Jeez, this is a civil matter. No one is going to... One
The last requirement is perhaps the most bizarre ... Supine
[quote name='Supine' post='183401' date='Sun 12th... One
[quote name='Supine' post='183401' date='Sun 12t... quantpole It's hilarious seeing the free speech heroes l... dtobias He might have problems if he gets a default judgme... GlassBeadGame
He might have problems if he gets a default judgm... Kato Wikipedios are doing what Wikipedios do best, they... Nerd
Wikipedios are doing what Wikipedios do best, the... Cedric It keeps getting better and better:
(emphasis h... Kato
Ridiculous.
This emphasises precisely why Wikip... dogbiscuit
It keeps getting better and better:
(emphasis ... Kato
It is really, really simple. It is not about copy... TungstenCarbide
[quote name='dogbiscuit' post='183446' date='Mon ... thekohser
I'm going to take a wild guess here that the ... Kato
"we will fulfil your order"
That's... thekohser
[quote name='thekohser' post='183553' date='Mon 1... Milton Roe
I'm going to take a wild guess here that the... TungstenCarbide Funniest news article title so far - http://www.t... GlassBeadGame
Funniest news article title so far - http://www.... Moulton Good article, but it is imperative that NPG gets s... dtobias
[quote name='TungstenCarbide' post='183584' date=... GlassBeadGame
[quote name='GlassBeadGame' post='183599' date='M... taiwopanfob Gmaxwell sayeth:
Well, no: Dcoetzee is being h... dtobias There are cases where a U.S. court has refused to ... GlassBeadGame
There are cases where a U.S. court has refused to... Daxx
One could argue that this is a civil matter and n... dtobias
Of course, now I'm wondering how someone coul... Obesity Dcoetzee rhymes with goatse.
Coincidence??? YOU D... Cedric Just in case any of you thought that I had already... Supine Oh you're referring to the settlement terms bi... Supine A Foundation-L mailing list post mentions the Apri... dcoetzee Hi all, I took a look over the thread, and althoug... Cedric
Hi all, I took a look over the thread, and althou... GlassBeadGame
Hi all, I took a look over the thread, and althou... Somey ...these images were in fact obtained from the NPG... Milton Roe
The example used by the NPG's Assistant Pictu... Moulton Per your signature, are you still an Administrator... Apathetic
Per your signature, are you still an Administrato... taiwopanfob s/he still has adminship rights at en.wiki, and pr... Malleus
Per your signature, are you still an Administrato... Adambro Hopefully this can get resolved without legal acti... Floydsvoid
I'm inclined to disagree with the NPG on this... Kato In light of this business, the National Portrait G... GlassBeadGame
In light of this business, the National Portrait ... No one of consequence
[quote name='Kato' post='183743' date='Mon 13th J... GlassBeadGame
[quote name='Kato' post='183743' date='Mon 13th ... Nerd
In light of this business, the National Portrait... dogbiscuit Having read the earlier letter, I was struck by th... thekohser
What is absolutely disgraceful is that the NPG is... Gandoman
Link to this "mention", please? Dcoetz... thekohser
[quote name='thekohser' post='183796' date='Tue 1... Milton Roe
ZOMG! They won't allow our hare-brained ... Giano
Having read the earlier letter, I was struck by t... Mathsci
[quote name='dogbiscuit' post='183790' date='Tue ... GlassBeadGame
Having read the [url=http://commons.wikimedia.org... thekohser
The article has its share of inaccuracies (WMF on... Gandoman One thing that has previously been mentioned over ... Cedric The MSM is finally on the story.
EDIT: "A s... Kato
The MSM [url=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa... taiwopanfob Gerard seems to have tempered his earlier rallying... Moulton The NPG spokesman added: "We haven't actu... dogbiscuit The fundamental issue here is that the UK copyrigh... Apathetic
What is worse, even when some tragedy strikes (an... dogbiscuit
What is worse, even when some tragedy strikes (a... Moulton Dogbiscuit is right. An unethical system is an un... Kato Working with, not against, cultural institutions
... GlassBeadGame
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikip... Cedric
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki... Random832 ...offers free access to all visitors.
Yes, for o... thekohser
...offers free access to all visitors.
Yes, for ... dtobias But you've got to admit that the attitude in t... GlassBeadGame
But you've got to admit that the attitude in ... thekohser
...Durova is a bit of a weather vain...
Pun int... GlassBeadGame
...Durova is a bit of a weather vain...
Pun in... dtobias
[quote name='GlassBeadGame' post='183994' date='T... Peter Damian Although major newpapers like the Guardian are cov... MBisanz
Although major newpapers like the Guardian are co... Peter Damian
[quote name='Peter Damian' post='184083' date='We... MBisanz
[quote name='MBisanz' post='184084' date='Wed 15t... Peter Damian
Not sure I agree with exactly how that is worded,... MBisanz
Not sure I agree with exactly how that is worded... No one of consequence I wonder if anyone has actually read the [url=http...
2 Pages 1 2 >
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |