The National Portrait Gallery Threatens Litigation, Big Oops for WMF? Options

[John Limey]

See the letter issued by solicitors for the UK National Portrait Gallery. Looks like the WMF and User:Dcoetzee might be headed for some serious trouble.

Naturally some idiot of an admin came along to block the account used to send the email immediately per WP:NLT. Yea...

[GlassBeadGame]

See the letter issued by solicitors for the UK National Portrait Gallery. Looks like the WMF and User:Dcoetzee might be headed for some serious trouble.

Naturally some idiot of an admin came along to block the account used to send the email immediately per WP:NLT. Yea...

The letter is reproduced here to enable public discourse on the issue.

He doesn't need public discourse. He needs a lawyer.

Good spot Limey. Welcome to WR.

[Kato]

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:

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)

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.

[John Limey]

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.

I am not a lawyer (though I almost went to law school and by Wikipedia standards that makes me essentially the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court...), but I tend to think that the rationale presented in the letter is sound; Bridgeman v. Corel indeed has no effect on the laws of the United Kingdom.

The letter of course presents a clear indication of a desire to settle the case without monetary damages (I think the user involved should just take the out and let some one else reupload the photos and let hell rain down on him or herself), which is often an indication of a less than rock-solid case. I get the impression though, that the Portrait Gallery really just wants the photos taken down and doesn't want to spend the time and money on a drawn out court case.

Hopefully, the user involved just deletes all the stuff as he is an admin (but what do you bet he gets desysopped as a result?) or Mike Godwin realizes that the WMF shouldn't ignore situations like this and does something.

[Kato]

Hopefully, the user involved just deletes all the stuff as he is an admin (but what do you bet he gets desysopped as a result?) or Mike Godwin realizes that the WMF shouldn't ignore situations like this and does something.

If this gathers pace, I guarantee the Free Culture crowd will try to fight it on political grounds. Those guys on Wikipedia Weekly ('Witty lama' in particular (?)) seemed to see this kind of thing as at the frontline of their intellectual battle against The World.

[EricBarbour]

Hopefully, the user involved just deletes all the stuff as he is an admin (but what do you bet he gets desysopped as a result?) or Mike Godwin realizes that the WMF shouldn't ignore situations like this and does something.

And sadly, no one will do anything to notorious prick Georgewilliamherbert--
the very prick who blocked that law firm account.....how dare they make a
threat? Ooohhh!!

When is GWH going to get his own subforum? He's earned one, twenty times over.

[GlassBeadGame]

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:

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.

The National Portrait Gallery is a substantial institution with strong equities and much motivation to press this issue. The correspondence seems to me well reasoned, thought out and very detailed. In itself, and taking into account the underlying work and investigation it represents, it already amounts to substantial commitment of legal resources. It is the kind of letter that indicates that the aggrieved party has his ducks in row and could work up pleading in short order. Next comes a round of discovery to WMF and ISP etc needed to name and serve the pseudonym (presumably WMF would also be named.) This does not seem to me to be an idle threat.

It might be worth the fight to WMF, represented by EFF or the like, and is certainly worth while for NPG. I doubt that the pseudonym will feel so glad about the experience by the time it's over.

[TungstenCarbide]

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:

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.

[JohnA]

Its just plagiarism, pure and simple. I bet those lawyers just cut and pasted from another legal complaint and thought we wouldn't notice.

[GlassBeadGame]

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..."

[John Limey]

FWIW. This is being discussed on Commons here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Village_...ortrait_Gallery

[Sarcasticidealist]

I'm no expert on copyright but I quit certain the act of creation they are concerned with is the photograph of the painting, not the painting itself.

As I understand it from having skimmed it in great detail, it's also the database that they're claiming is copyrighted.

The case cited would appear to make this not protected under US copyright law.

I thought they were acknowledging that it was protected under US copyright, but that because the database was hosted in the UK and because the images are being directed to UK viewers, he was liable under UK law.

Please do take special note of my signature in this post.

[A Horse With No Name]

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.

This is the single funniest post I have read on WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

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.

This is the single funniest post I have read on WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

He once, very briefly, had a Wikipedia Bio.

See the WR scraping of it here.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[TungstenCarbide]

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:

[dtobias]

Legally, the gallery might be right, at least in the U.K. (though not in the U.S., where the servers and apparently the individual Wikipedian are). Morally, however, I have to side with the "free culture" crowd and oppose efforts by institutions to gain proprietary rights over things whose copyrights are nonexistent or long expired, simply based on their possession of the physical objects and their limiting the ability of outsiders to make photographs or copies of them.

----------------
Now playing: Nikka Costa - Push And Pull
via FoxyTunes

[Kato]

I agree, legally speaking.

But think about it - if the only photo available was crappy it'd still be used in the Wikipedia article. Nobody's interested in the photographer's skill, there are interested in the artists painting. Yet 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.

You seem to be pouring doubt and scorn on the claim that it takes skill to photograph certain artworks for a high quality collections. What do you think professional photographers who make their living on this do when they arrive at a gallery? Take a few polaroid snaps in 20 minutes then go for a cigarette?

It takes time and money to produce quality reproductions of artworks.

[GlassBeadGame]

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 think about it - if the only photo available was crappy it'd still be used in the Wikipedia article. Nobody's interested in the photographer's skill, there are interested in the artists painting. Yet 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.

They are a gallery. Any panting contained in their database are either in their collection, which means they curate, maintain and exhibit as well as control access to photographs or they are photos that they went the trouble to gain access and permission to photograph. All of this represent significant effort. Many galleries are non-profits that need the revenues from controlling the access to photograph their collection. "Free culture" is at odds with these institutions with historic ties to their communities and have long provided wide public access to real culture.

[EricBarbour]

It takes time and money to produce quality reproductions of artworks.

Neither of which are available in the vacuum-packed Wikiworld.

Instead, they have shit like this and this.
And don't forget the goat piss.

Plus, go and ask David Cameron what he thinks.....
(IMG:http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss273/metasonix/Davidcameron.jpg)

(crap, having trouble finding threads about bad home-made art being used to illustrate articles.
Happens all the time.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Kato]

(crap, having trouble finding threads about bad home-made art being used to illustrate articles.
Happens all the time.)

Susan Boyle (T-H-L-K-D)

[Jon Awbrey]

Legally, the gallery might be right, at least in the U.K. (though not in the U.S., where the servers and apparently the individual Wikipedian are). Morally, however, I have to side with the "free culture" crowd and oppose efforts by institutions to gain proprietary rights over things whose copyrights are nonexistent or long expired, simply based on their possession of the physical objects and their limiting the ability of outsiders to make photographs or copies of them.

FreeKulture is so 2001 —

All the ↑2d8 Libertaters have moved on to the —

Free Legal Advice By Amateur Lawyers Movement
FLABALM

[TungstenCarbide]

I agree, legally speaking.

But think about it - if the only photo available was crappy it'd still be used in the Wikipedia article. Nobody's interested in the photographer's skill, there are interested in the artists painting. Yet 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.

You seem to be pouring doubt and scorn on the claim that it takes skill to photograph certain artworks for a high quality collections. What do you think professional photographers who make their living on this do when they arrive at a gallery? Take a few polaroid snaps in 20 minutes then go for a cigarette?

It takes time and money to produce quality reproductions of artworks.

Oh, I agree. But nevertheless, they are trying to use the 'skillful photographer's' argument to gain the value of the artists' original work. It's like saying ... copyrights expire, except for really good copies, in which case the legal heirs of the artwork are cut out and the value of the art is goes to whoever created the really good copy. For a straight-up copy this isn't morally right.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[sbrown]

Theres the point that aparently theyd gone to the trouble of preventing people downloading the images and hed found a way round the protection.

Incidentally the solicitors Farrers are very well known and have often represented the Royal Family.

[thekohser]

All the ↑2d8 Libertaters have moved on to the —

Free Legal Advice By Amateur Lawyers Movement
FLABALM

Not to be confused with:

Flauxbam ! ! !

[Peter Damian]

You seem to be pouring doubt and scorn on the claim that it takes skill to photograph certain artworks for a high quality collections. What do you think professional photographers who make their living on this do when they arrive at a gallery? Take a few polaroid snaps in 20 minutes then go for a cigarette?

It takes time and money to produce quality reproductions of artworks.

I work with digital versions of manuscripts and there is no doubt that a professionally produced photograph is superior in many ways to non-professionally produced versions. It takes expensive equipment to get the lighting correct (otherwise you get all sorts of shadows and effects that shouldn't be there), and to get the angle correct and so on. I sometimes produce my own versions but they are far inferior.

We should perhaps have a separate thread on another moral issue of Wikipedia: that it removes work from honest people. The true cost of reproductions, of writing encyclopedias and so on is fairly high because people who do this for an actual living have to live.

[TungstenCarbide]

You seem to be pouring doubt and scorn on the claim that it takes skill to photograph certain artworks for a high quality collections. What do you think professional photographers who make their living on this do when they arrive at a gallery? Take a few polaroid snaps in 20 minutes then go for a cigarette?

It takes time and money to produce quality reproductions of artworks.

I work with digital versions of manuscripts and there is no doubt that a professionally produced photograph is superior in many ways to non-professionally produced versions. It takes expensive equipment to get the lighting correct (otherwise you get all sorts of shadows and effects that shouldn't be there), and to get the angle correct and so on. I sometimes produce my own versions but they are far inferior.

We should perhaps have a separate thread on another moral issue of Wikipedia: that it removes work from honest people. The true cost of reproductions, of writing encyclopedias and so on is fairly high because people who do this for an actual living have to live.

It also takes skill and expensive equipment to machine a fine bearing race. That doesn't mean the machinist owns a copyright on it. Why should it be so for a photograph of a masterpiece? 'Creativity' is inherent in copyright law.

Where the hell is NYB when we need him.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Push the button]

Why should it be so for a photograph of a masterpiece? 'Creativity' is inherent in copyright law.

It isn't so for a photograph of a masterpiece, as clearly such a photograph would fall at the very first hurdle (which the attorneys' letter actually cites) of the relevant legislation, which states that copyright subsists in original artistic works.

There's no originality in a photographic reproduction of a painting, particularly one in which (as they themselves take pains to stress) so much time and effort has been invested in ensuring that it is as faithful and painstakingly accurate a reproduction as possible. In doing so, all that time and effort has had the opposite effect - to ensure that there is no creativity or originality in the resultant photograph - and consequently that no copyright subsists.

Flowing from that, all the claims made by the attorneys would appear to fall away (as they're all predicated around copyright existing in the photographs) bar the talk of database rights, where they appear to have a point. I can't see what their loss would be if database rights existed, though.

IANAL, though, so may well be wrong.

This post has been edited by Push the button:

[standixon]

If I take a photograph, don't I own the copyright to my own work. Isn't that why the Wiki 'allows' the uploading of images that are the uploader's own work?

If a photographer takes a picture for a newspaper doesn't the copyright belong to him and then transfer to the paper? Isn't that the basis of the newspaper's payment to him?

Have I imagined the fuss made on Wiki about images that don't have the required 'permissions' to be hosted?

In my home town the art gallery prohibits photography.

If I take a photograph of an artist's work, without permission of the artist or the copyright holder, and produce prints, posters etc. surely I would be a criminal?

Isn't the issue here quite plain: the uploader took somebody else's work, the photos, and placed them on Wiki.

Of course the stolen photos were also placed in an online gallery on a website for public viewing. That means that they were part of a copyrighted, original, work.

Plagiarism, Theft and against Wikipedia policy.

Morally indefensible. But this is Wikipedia and some of the members here seem to be parroting the Wikipediot line. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

The rational , moral and legally correct thing to do would have been to include links to the website and photo gallery.


This post has been edited by standixon:

[Kato]

Where the hell is NYB when we need him.

NYB is useless in this situation because he is on the other side of the world in a completely different legal system. We're talking about UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act here.

I suspect that the letter from the NPG's lawyers is a speculative threat, and they don't really have a case. However, such cases are unpredictable in the UK, and the fact that the Wikipedio knowingly circumvented the NPG's onsite restrictions will not be well received by any judge.

Given that the National Portrait Gallery is a publicly owned institution that allows free access to visitors, my default position is to support them against the erratic behaviour of unaccountable foreigners with political agendas I don't agree with.

[Push the button]

If I take a photograph, don't I own the copyright to my own work. Isn't that why the Wiki 'allows' the uploading of images that are the uploader's own work?

If a photographer takes a picture for a newspaper doesn't the copyright belong to him and then transfer to the paper? Isn't that the basis of the newspaper's payment to him?

Have I imagined the fuss made on Wiki about images that don't have the required 'permissions' to be hosted?

In my home town the art gallery prohibits photography.

If I take a photograph of an artist's work, without permission of the artist or the copyright holder, and produce prints, posters etc. surely I would be a criminal?

Isn't the issue here quite plain: the uploader took somebody else's work, the photos, and placed them on Wiki.

Of course the stolen photos were also placed in an online gallery on a website for public viewing. That means that they were part of a copyrighted, original, work.

Plagiarism, Theft and against Wikipedia policy.

Morally indefensible. But this is Wikipedia and some of the members here seem to be parroting the Wikipediot line.

The rational , moral and legally correct thing to do would have been to include links to the website and photo gallery.

If you create an original artistic work in photographic form, yes, you own the copyright to that work and can exploit it, and prevent its exploitation, pretty much however you wish. That right will survive for a period of time - your life plus X years, I guess, depending on what and where.

Uploading it to Wikipedia is one form of exploitation - granting a licence to Wikipedia to use it under the terms of the GDFwotsit. Selling it to your local paper is another (the transfer of the actual copyright to them may or may not be part of the deal - you could simply grant them a licence to use it once, or you could assign the ownership of the copyright to them in whole - depends what you agree and how they go about doing business).

The fuss on Wikipedia about images that don't have the required permissions is aimed at ensuring that those rights are respected - where the copyright owner doesn't give permission for the image to be used, then it can't be used, except under a limited set of circumstances.

Your local art gallery preventing photography could be for a number of reasons - where copyright still subsists in the work (so depending on the age of the art concerned) then it's a method of preventing copyright infringement - if you can't take a photo of the artwork, then you can't readily print your own copy of it. If copyright doesn't still subsist, then it's about the only method of keeping some form of control over the reproduction of the images - so a backdoor method of protection, in essence. If you take a photo of a work covered by copyright and try and exploit it yourself then no, you're not automatically a criminal. Copyright infringement is primarily a civil wrong, although depending on how you the go about exploiting it you may also be committing a crime.

Plagiarism? Erm, no, because there's no attempt by one person to pass the artwork or the photograph off as their own original work. Theft? No, because there's no intention to permanently deprive the National Gallery of the ownership of the physical paintings or the original copy of the photograph thereof. Against Wikipedia policy? Meh.

As for including links to the website and the gallery - well, that was done.

This post has been edited by Push the button:

[dogbiscuit]

Legally, the gallery might be right, at least in the U.K. (though not in the U.S., where the servers and apparently the individual Wikipedian are). Morally, however, I have to side with the "free culture" crowd and oppose efforts by institutions to gain proprietary rights over things whose copyrights are nonexistent or long expired, simply based on their possession of the physical objects and their limiting the ability of outsiders to make photographs or copies of them.

Typical freedophile nonsense. The National Portrait Gallery has gone to some effort to provide professionally produced using public money to provide a public service. Freedophiles seem to have determined that they are beyond the law. There is a tradition that you can campaign beyond the law and take actions, but that then you have to accept the risk that you will be punished.

In the UK, institutions like the National Portrait Gallery were expressly set up to preserve art (which is not really about copyright, it is about preserving, restoring, researching and displaying the works) and aside from an ignominious period in the Thatcher years, have been built on free access. The freedophile ignores this. So this quick snap that they perceive as having no value is built on thousands of pounds of effort.

The NPG has taken considerable effort to make available - for free - it's collection on the web. You can see the real things for free. However, th freedophiles only see one element, without grasping that there is more to art than being able to nick it. If it were established that it was perfectly acceptable and legitimate for users of a service to determine their own terms and conditions of use, then places like the NPG simply would not bother. Of course, the likes of Google might step in and do the work, so instead of having many institutions in the world providing a service, you end up with less free information as you end up selling your souls to Google as a result of your naive and blinkered views.

I am amazed that the WMF has not blocked and banned any user who has deliberately stolen copyrighted works.

With regards to the NPG, it seems that they are taking a route which is not about strength of legal cases, but about a moral argument - they are happy to work with the WMF, and happy that in some form that the images can be used, just don't leach off their premium service. If you understood the NPG, they are more than willing to ensure that their pictures are widely available through loans, for academic research, any other reputable institution can get hold of them.

I have yet to understand what the freedophile thinks will happen in their nirvana where everything is provided for free at no cost to the consumer. Like Americans who seem to think that a national infrastructure should be built without taxes then wonder why their bridges collapse, there is a basic failure to realise at some point someone has to do serious work and have a reasonable right to be recompensed. At some point the parents' money or benefits runs out and leaching off other people kills the golden goose.

[Peter Damian]

It also takes skill and expensive equipment to machine a fine bearing race. That doesn't mean the machinist owns a copyright on it. Why should it be so for a photograph of a masterpiece? 'Creativity' is inherent in copyright law.

Where the hell is NYB when we need him.

No but the company that employs that person owns the copyright.

On the supposedly complex legal situation, the letter supposedly from Farrers refers to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk...880048_en_2#pt1

which says

Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work—
(a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,
[...]
where "artistic work” means—
(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality,"

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Kato]

In the UK, institutions like the National Portrait Gallery were expressly set up to preserve art (which is not really about copyright, it is about preserving, restoring, researching and displaying the works) and aside from an ignominious period in the Thatcher years, have been built on free access. The freedophile ignores this. So this quick snap that they perceive as having no value is built on thousands of pounds of effort.

I think that's the important issue. The fight for Free Culture was a battle fought decades ago to give everyone Open Access to important works of art to all visitors via public ownership.

We paid for it and we continue to pay to maintain this.

By challenging the NPG on the basis of "Free information", people are actually undermining our hard fought rights to offer Free Access. As history tells us, efforts to undermine public institutions inevitably results in services falling into private hands. Where nothing is Free.

American software developers like Dcoetzee may be well meaning when they do things like this in the name of "Free Culture", but they are poorly equipped to see the broader picture. Especially when it refers to cultural battles in a whole different continent and culture.

On the supposedly complex legal situation, the letter supposedly from Farrers refers to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

I'm now pretty sure they're bluffing on this, and it won't stand up in court. Whether morally justified or not, the Wikipedios would likely win. Of course this means that the capacity to produce high quality reproductions of collections will be hampered and the NPG will suffer - but what does that matter to some computer nut in Berkeley?

[Push the button]

On the supposedly complex legal situation, the letter supposedly from Farrers refers to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk...880048_en_2#pt1

which says

Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work—
(a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,
[...]
where "artistic work” means—
(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality,"

As I said earlier, with a little added emphasis this time around :

...clearly such a photograph would fall at the very first hurdle (which the attorneys' letter actually cites) of the relevant legislation, which states that copyright subsists in original artistic works...

Where's the originality in a photograph which merely reproduces an existing work? There is none, irrespective of how much work went in to taking the photograph (and talk about the "sweat of one's brow" means sweat brought on by the creative process, not the technical work in setting up the lighting, camera and other equipment necessary to take a faithfully reproductive photograph of a painting, which doesn't involve any actual creativity (ie. nothing artistic is created thereby) whatsoever.

Since copyright requires originality of creation, there cannot be any copyright inherent in a photograph of a piece of art on which the underlying copyright has long since expired. The museums know this - that's why they ban cameras and yet have a conveniently placed shop by the exit where you can pick up life size posters of your favourite works.

Unfortunately for the NPG, by spending all that time and money in digitising faithful reproductions of those artworks they have, in effect, taken down all their "no camera" signs. Yes, they may have made things difficult through imposing technical restrictions, but since the restriction on circumventing technical restrictions only exists to prevent infringement of copyrighted works, if there's no originality, there's no copyright, so there's no unlawful circumvention of technical measures.

[No one of consequence]

The National Portrait Gallery is a substantial institution with strong equities and much motivation to press this issue. The correspondence seems to me well reasoned, thought out and very detailed. In itself, and taking into account the underlying work and investigation it represents, it already amounts to substantial commitment of legal resources. It is the kind of letter that indicates that the aggrieved party has his ducks in row and could work up pleading in short order. Next comes a round of discovery to WMF and ISP etc needed to name and serve the pseudonym (presumably WMF would also be named.) This does not seem to me to be an idle threat.

It might be worth the fight to WMF, represented by EFF or the like, and is certainly worth while for NPG. I doubt that the pseudonym will feel so glad about the experience by the time it's over.

But the WMF is in the US. Is there such a thing as international civil courts? (I don't think so.) Unless the threatened editor lives in the UK, both he and the WMF would seem to be beyond the NPG's reach.

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.

That's what Bridgeman is about in the US. The circumstances of Bridgeman have never been litigated in the UK. It is interesting that the letter cites the supposed creative input and skill by the photographer (to exactly reproduce a work of art?) as a way to pre-empt a Bridgeman-like article.

It would be lovely if this were litigated in the UK and for the NPG to lose just like Bridgeman did. Copyright protects artistic expression for a limited period of time in order to encourage and monetize such expressions. Copyright was never meant to be permanent.

Legally, the gallery might be right, at least in the U.K. (though not in the U.S., where the servers and apparently the individual Wikipedian are). Morally, however, I have to side with the "free culture" crowd and oppose efforts by institutions to gain proprietary rights over things whose copyrights are nonexistent or long expired, simply based on their possession of the physical objects and their limiting the ability of outsiders to make photographs or copies of them.

Hear, hear!

It also takes skill and expensive equipment to machine a fine bearing race. That doesn't mean the machinist owns a copyright on it. Why should it be so for a photograph of a masterpiece? 'Creativity' is inherent in copyright law.

Where the hell is NYB when we need him.

No but the company that employs that person owns the copyright.

On the supposedly complex legal situation, the letter supposedly from Farrers refers to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk...880048_en_2#pt1

which says

Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work—
(a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,
[...]
where "artistic work” means—
(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality,"

But is a photographic reproduction of a painting "original"? This is the basis for Bridgeman v Corel in the US, and the museum lost. There is no question that in the US, such photographs, no matter how skillfully taken, are not protected. A similar case has not been litigated in the UK, as the letter points out, so the museum is in fact taking some risk here as well.

[Kato]

But the WMF is in the US. Is there such a thing as international civil courts? (I don't think so.) Unless the threatened editor lives in the UK, both he and the WMF would seem to be beyond the NPG's reach.

It would be lovely if this were litigated in the UK and for the NPG to lose just like Bridgeman did.

This is one of my biggest gripes with Wikipedia. What you are advocating is cultural bullying of a publicly owned institution in another country, and then you rush behind the skirts of Uncle Sam when they try to fight back.

We've said this many times before, but make no mistake, at the core of Wikipedia lies a radical and essentially right wing agenda to undermine public ownership, which ultimately places knowledge and culture in the hands of private interests. In this case, it isn't even your public ownership.

Hands Off.

[Push the button]

...a radical and essentially right wing agenda to undermine public ownership...

Sorry, but public ownership of what, in this instance?

[Kato]

Here's the National Portrait Gallery's statement from their website:

http://www.npg.org.uk/about/creators/copyright.php

Copyright and the National Portrait Gallery
The Gallery has a public duty not only to conserve and display works in its Collection but also to ensure they are correctly represented in reproductions and publications.

As a result of continuing research, from time to time adjustments are made in the attributions of artists and sitters, and these amendments are reflected in Gallery publications such as this website. Likewise, we ensure pictures are represented in their most recent state of restoration.

There are sometimes sensitive issues involving artists, sitters, donors or lenders of Collection works, to which we must be responsive. Accordingly, we tightly control the circumstances and quality of reproductions from the Collection.

The Gallery's image licensing department issues images for reproduction purposes. We also exert strict controls on all photography in the Gallery, which is allowed only on the understanding that copyright rests with us and that any further reproduction deriving from resulting photographic materials is subject to our written permission.

The Gallery is a strong supporter of free entry - we don't think visitors should have to pay to see the Collection. Those who may never be able to visit us can enjoy and learn about the Collection through images published in books and magazines, and on television and the internet.
The Gallery's image licensing department raises money by licensing reproductions, thus supporting both the free entry policy and the Gallery's main functions caring for its Collection and engaging people with its works.

...a radical and essentially right wing agenda to undermine public ownership...

Sorry, but public ownership of what, in this instance?

The National Portrait Gallery is publicly owned. It's owned by me.

[No one of consequence]

But the WMF is in the US. Is there such a thing as international civil courts? (I don't think so.) Unless the threatened editor lives in the UK, both he and the WMF would seem to be beyond the NPG's reach.

This is one of my biggest gripes with Wikipedia. What you are advocating is cultural bullying of a publicly owned institution in another country, and then you rush behind the skirts of Uncle Sam when they try to fight back.

We've said this many times before, but make no mistake, at the core of Wikipedia lies a radical and essentially right wing agenda to undermine public ownership which ultimately ends up placing knowledge and culture in the hands of private interests.

Why is this not a case instead of a publicly owned institution trying to bully a private citizen to protect an illegitimately-claimed financial interest in a piece of public property?

Here you have the NPG, supported by UK taxpayers, trying to make money selling reproductions of property that they do not own intellectual property rights to, by virtue of their possession of the original. Isn't The Death of Lord Nelson a British National Treasure? But it should only be available to people who can afford to buy prints?

[taiwopanfob]

Where's the originality in a photograph which merely reproduces an existing work? There is none, irrespective of how much work went in to taking the photograph (and talk about the "sweat of one's brow" means sweat brought on by the creative process, not the technical work in setting up the lighting, camera and other equipment necessary to take a faithfully reproductive photograph of a painting, which doesn't involve any actual creativity (ie. nothing artistic is created thereby) whatsoever.

There are serious technical and creative issues at play when any photograph is taken. Good pictures are hard to get, and this is true regardless of what you or even the Supreme Court may believe.

For example, try a flower. Say, a tulip. According to the stellar reasoning from your end, copyright on any photograph of a tulip can not exist, since the photographer did not "create" or "originate" the tulip. Even planting the thing isn't enough, since any idiot -- even a Wikipediot -- can dig a hole in the ground, drop in a bulb, and wait a few months.

[No one of consequence]

Copyright and the National Portrait Gallery

The Gallery is a strong supporter of free entry - we don't think visitors should have to pay to see the Collection. Those who may never be able to visit us can enjoy and learn about the Collection through images published in books and magazines, and on television and the internet.

Good on them, but...

The Gallery's image licensing department raises money by licensing reproductions, thus supporting both the free entry policy and the Gallery's main functions caring for its Collection and engaging people with its works.

So, if I am affluent enough to own a computer and an internet connection, I can view these great works for "free." But if I want a copy to hang on the wall of my office, I have to pay, even though the original is undisputedly in the public domain.

Here's a thought experiment...suppose the copyright claim on the photo reproductions holds up in the UK courts. Can the NPG extend their copyright claim indefinitely by arranging to have photographs of the photographs taken every 69 years? If not, then why does copyright protect the first generation photo? If so, how does this comport with the fundamental purpose of copyright, which is to encourage artistic expression for the benefit of all mankind by granting a temporary exclusive right to exploit. And do you think that people who stage Oscar Wilde or G&S or Shakespeare plays should be paying royalties to the heirs?

[Kato]

Isn't The Death of Lord Nelson a British National Treasure?

That's why we bought it. That's why it is in the hands of one of our publicly owned institutions. So we can view it for free whenever we like. And thanks to our commitment to public ownership of artworks, we can protect the work from entering private hands.

But you want us to lose a court case which will damage our capacity to protect the very British National Treasures you proclaim.

[Push the button]

The Gallery's image licensing department raises money by licensing reproductions.

Given that the NPG doesn't solely own historic portraits, it will doubtless own a large number in which copyright still subsists and (presumably) vests with the NPG - it can therefore license those as it sees fit to raise money.

That's not the point, though. The point is that copyright in the original artworks of which copies have been uploaded to Wikipedia has expired. That they've taken and published photographs of those artworks doesn't create a backdoor to the life+70 years copyright timespan.

If they're raising revenue through licensing of images on which copyright has expired, then (a) clever them, and shame on the people who are paying those license fees, and (b) that's a byproduct of their ability to make it exceedingly difficult for people to access the originals themselves to make and exploit their own copies.

This post has been edited by Push the button:

[No one of consequence]

Where's the originality in a photograph which merely reproduces an existing work? There is none, irrespective of how much work went in to taking the photograph (and talk about the "sweat of one's brow" means sweat brought on by the creative process, not the technical work in setting up the lighting, camera and other equipment necessary to take a faithfully reproductive photograph of a painting, which doesn't involve any actual creativity (ie. nothing artistic is created thereby) whatsoever.

There are serious technical and creative issues at play when any photograph is taken. Good pictures are hard to get, and this is true regardless of what you or even the Supreme Court may believe.

For example, try a flower. Say, a tulip. According to the stellar reasoning from your end, copyright on any photograph of a tulip can not exist, since the photographer did not "create" or "originate" the tulip. Even planting the thing isn't enough, since any idiot -- even a Wikipediot -- can dig a hole in the ground, drop in a bulb, and wait a few months.

No, please see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., which is the law of the land in the US. A photograph of a tulip sunflower involves many creative decisions (about light, composition, selection of the subject, angle, time, filters, etc.) An exact photographic reproduction of Vase with 12 Sunflowers by Van Gogh may require great technical skill, but not creative expression.

A case like Bridgeman has not yet been litigated in the UK. The NPG is taking on some risk if they pursue their claim in court.

[Kato]

And do you think that people who stage Oscar Wilde or G&S or Shakespeare plays should be paying royalties to the heirs?

Try uploading Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet to Wikipedia and see how far you get? Maybe that should be free as well?

[Push the button]

And do you think that people who stage Oscar Wilde or G&S or Shakespeare plays should be paying royalties to the heirs?

Try uploading Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet to Wikipedia and see how far you get? Maybe that should be free as well?

Not very, because a different set of copyrights exist.

The copyright in the underlying words, the script (assuming it was accurate to the original) has long since expired, which is why, if I want, I could publish a copy of it without having to pay royalties to Shakespeare's heirs.

The copyright in the film, however, is very much alive and well, and depending on who is deemed to be the creator of the film (the director, I guess?) will continue until 70 years after they have died.

[GlassBeadGame]

But the WMF is in the US. Is there such a thing as international civil courts? (I don't think so.) Unless the threatened editor lives in the UK, both he and the WMF would seem to be beyond the NPG's reach.

This is one of my biggest gripes with Wikipedia. What you are advocating is cultural bullying of a publicly owned institution in another country, and then you rush behind the skirts of Uncle Sam when they try to fight back.

We've said this many times before, but make no mistake, at the core of Wikipedia lies a radical and essentially right wing agenda to undermine public ownership which ultimately ends up placing knowledge and culture in the hands of private interests.

Why is this not a case instead of a publicly owned institution trying to bully a private citizen to protect an illegitimately-claimed financial interest in a piece of public property?

Here you have the NPG, supported by UK taxpayers, trying to make money selling reproductions of property that they do not own intellectual property rights to, by virtue of their possession of the original. Isn't The Death of Lord Nelson a British National Treasure? But it should only be available to people who can afford to buy prints?

Maybe because you don't get to unilaterally write the narrative? As outlined above there are strong equities on the side of NPG and other museums and galleries. Ultimately this issue is existential for galleries. They have strong allies in the in the press and civic community for the very reason that they have long provided community access to the arts and culture. They have to fight this fight or they will be next victim among free institutions to fall to "free culture," right in line after newspapers.

[Peter Damian]

No, please see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., which is the law of the land in the US.

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.

[No one of consequence]

And do you think that people who stage Oscar Wilde or G&S or Shakespeare plays should be paying royalties to the heirs?

Try uploading Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet to Wikipedia and see how far you get? Maybe that should be free as well.

Neither of us is stupid, this strawman argument does not serve you well.

I am not advocating for free copying of works that are still within their original copyright period.

And, by the way, if Hamlet was treated the same was as the NPG wants to treat its 400 year old paintings, Shakespeare's heirs could have extracted a huge license fee from Branagh, or even refused him permission to make his version. Is that where you want to go?

[taiwopanfob]

But it should only be available to people who can afford to buy prints?

Maybe I should present myself to Disney World, and demand free entrance. How can they possibly sleep at night, knowing they are denying the pinnacle of western culture to millions of children and adults? On the basis of pure economic discrimination?

I'm also getting a bit pissed off at the local swimming pool. All those signs about having to shower before entry, restrictions on what I can wear in the pool, what I can do in or around the water. Who the hell do these people think they are?

Basically, Kato is dead right here. Proprietary interests are why things are as good as they are around here, and the Free Kulture people are not thinking on a long enough timeline.

[Peter Damian]

'Wanker' Gerard chimes in

http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/

For several years, the National Portrait Gallery has claimed copyright over public domain images in their possession. Wikimedia has ignored these claims, occasionally laughing. (Bridgeman v. Corel. Sweat of the brow is not creation in US law; go away.) Our official stance in this time has been “sue and be damned.”

So the National Portrait Gallery has tried. Here’s their letter. A lollipop for every misconception or unlikely or impossible demand. This was sent after (so they claim) the WMF ignored their latest missive. The editor they sent the threat to is … an American.

A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over uploading images that are public domain in the US to an American server — unambiguously, in established US law, not a copyright violation of any sort. I wonder how the case will go.

[tl;dr]

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[dtobias]

Interesting how to oppose a "right-wing corporate agenda" you're backing expansionist interpretations of copyright law based on preventing anything from ever falling into the public domain, which in turn is precisely the stance taken by big corporations that want to control things in a proprietary way (e.g., Disney, Time-Warner).

[taiwopanfob]

No, please see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., which is the law of the land in the US. A photograph of a tulip sunflower involves many creative decisions (about light, composition, selection of the subject, angle, time, filters, etc.) An exact photographic reproduction of Vase with 12 Sunflowers by Van Gogh may require great technical skill, but not creative expression.

I guess I have to tell you again: any photograph is an exercise in technical and creative tradeoffs.

This is true regardless of what you or even the Supreme Court of the Universe may believe.

I strongly suggest you try and make an "exact" copy of a piece of art.

[Kato]

And do you think that people who stage Oscar Wilde or G&S or Shakespeare plays should be paying royalties to the heirs?

Try uploading Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet to Wikipedia and see how far you get? Maybe that should be free as well?

Not very, because a different set of copyrights exist.

The copyright in the underlying words, the script (assuming it was accurate to the original) has long since expired, which is why, if I want, I could publish a copy of it without having to pay royalties to Shakespeare's heirs.

The copyright in the film, however, is very much alive and well, and depending on who is deemed to be the creator of the film (the director, I guess?) will continue until 70 years after they have died.

But many of the same moral ambiguities can be applied to Branagh's Hamlet as the NPG's reproductions. Is Branagh the creator of Hamlet? His movie costs vast amounts of money to make. Free Culture Kooks refuse to understand such ambiguities, in fact they refuse to acknowledge pragmatic solutions to most matters. This is why they are now hammering on the NPG and ignoring the duties the NPG has to offering Free Access to the public, and the high maintenance involved. The NPG being a publicly owned institution makes the hammering all the more insidious.

Interesting how to oppose a "right-wing corporate agenda"

Give it up Tobias, I didn't even write "corporate" for starters. Misquote me again on this site and I'll be boarding a plane to Florida. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Push the button]

But many of the same moral ambiguities can be applied to Branagh's Hamlet as the NPG's reproductions. Is Branagh is not the creator of Hamlet, but his movie costs vast amounts of money to make.

I disagree - the movie of Hamlet involved a great deal of original creative expression over and above the mere words on the page that Shakespeare wrote. It is a work of artistic merit in its own right, and not merely as a result of the original script. NPG's reproductions, no matter how technically brilliant, involve no originality whatsoever - all the originality of creation took place back whenever it was that the paintings were first painted - and as I have been saying repeatedly it is original artistic creativity that gives rise to copyright.

This post has been edited by Push the button:

[taiwopanfob]

NPG's reproductions, no matter how technically brilliant, involve no originality whatsoever - all the originality of creation took place back whenever it was that the paintings were first painted - and as I have been saying repeatedly it is original artistic creativity that gives rise to copyright.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Worse, even if you did know what you are talking about, your argument directly leads to nonsense. A photograph of a weevil: you didn't create the weevil, so how can you claim any right to an image of one? It's all just photons flying by; why should you benefit for simply capturing a few of them?

[Kato]

But many of the same moral ambiguities can be applied to Branagh's Hamlet as the NPG's reproductions. Is Branagh is not the creator of Hamlet, but his movie costs vast amounts of money to make.

I disagree - the movie of Hamlet involved a great deal of original creative expression over and above the mere words on the page that Shakespeare wrote. It is a work of artistic merit in its own right, and not merely as a result of the original script. NPG's reproductions, no matter how technically brilliant, involve no originality whatsoever - all the originality of creation took place back whenever it was that the paintings were first painted - and as I have been saying repeatedly it is original artistic creativity that gives rise to copyright.

Regardless of the law, and I've stated a couple of times that I believe that the NPG would lose this case if challenged, the fact remains that to make the reproductions involves time and money. Just as Branagh's Hamlet took time and money.

If you remove the NPG's control over their own reproductions, it damages their capacity to put time and money into further quality reproductions (which are viewable on their website anyway), and undermines our ability to keep our artworks in public hands. The NPG needs control over these images as part of the maintenance process (you can't have people taking photos of paintings whenever they like, as that can damage the work), and it needs control for moral reasons to keep our paintings in public hands.

Without that control, we lose.

[Cla68]

I remember a few years ago I was dismayed to find out that the Australian War Memorial (AWM) stated that the photos in it's database, many of which I hoped to use for Pacific War articles, were copyrighted and illegal to copy or distribute without permission or purchase. The fact is, under Australian copyright law, all photos from that time period are public domain.

I complained to the AWM about it...and I can't remember how they responded and I can't locate the email they sent me. Less than a year later, however, they amended their stipulations and said that the photos could be copied if the AWM was listed as the source, and that's what we've been doing since. I assume this case is similar to the AWM's situation in some ways, although in this case the subject of the photo is public domain, not necessarily the photo itself?

[No one of consequence]

But it should only be available to people who can afford to buy prints?

Maybe I should present myself to Disney World, and demand free entrance. How can they possibly sleep at night, knowing they are denying the pinnacle of western culture to millions of children and adults? On the basis of pure economic discrimination?

I'm also getting a bit pissed off at the local swimming pool. All those signs about having to shower before entry, restrictions on what I can wear in the pool, what I can do in or around the water. Who the hell do these people think they are?

Basically, Kato is dead right here. Proprietary interests are why things are as good as they are around here, and the Free Kulture people are not thinking on a long enough timeline.

I'm going to ignore your irrelevant strawman arguments, and instead ask two questions.

1. Should proprietary interests be indefinite, and if so, what distinguishes artistic innovation from technical innovation? Why is it acceptable for the NPG to claim exclusive use to reproduce portraits that are in the public domain, when pharmaceutical companies only get 21 (or 25) years to exclusively market a drug?

2. Can any owner of the original work of art claim a new copyright by making a careful enough reproduction? How about the original motion pictures made by Edison and the Lumière brothers? Here is a wax cylinder recording of a song by Arthur Sullivan, made in 1888. Can the owner of the original cylinder claim a new copyright over the song or the recording, by making a careful reproduction?

[taiwopanfob]

But it should only be available to people who can afford to buy prints?

Maybe I should present myself to Disney World, and demand free entrance. How can they possibly sleep at night, knowing they are denying the pinnacle of western culture to millions of children and adults? On the basis of pure economic discrimination?

I'm also getting a bit pissed off at the local swimming pool. All those signs about having to shower before entry, restrictions on what I can wear in the pool, what I can do in or around the water. Who the hell do these people think they are?

Basically, Kato is dead right here. Proprietary interests are why things are as good as they are around here, and the Free Kulture people are not thinking on a long enough timeline.

I'm going to ignore your irrelevant strawman arguments, and instead ask two questions.

You effectively ask why people should pay to see stuff in a museum, etc. I take the position to its conclusion and you now claim "strawman". Who is tossing the hay around here, anyways?

1. Should proprietary interests be indefinite, and if so, what distinguishes artistic innovation from technical innovation? Why is it acceptable for the NPG to claim exclusive use to reproduce portraits that are in the public domain, when pharmaceutical companies only get 21 (or 25) years to exclusively market a drug?

Because the NPG owns the physical artefact? Because the NPG wants to maintain the artefact in a pristine condition? That if the NPG is forced to sell the artefact -- say, because it is too expensive to maintain -- it will fall into private hands, and thus be denied to everyone, but for whatever images were made prior to it? Especially so, since it would not be in anyone's further interest to photograph it, given the copyright regime you are demanding?

The basic problem you are ignoring is that copyright is what will ultimately prop up Free Kulture. CC, GFDL, etc, are all meaningless in an environment where copyright is at the whim of the mob of Wikipediots, or even a bunch of retards sitting around a table, in a room, in a building labelled "Supreme Court".

2. Can any owner of the original work of art claim a new copyright by making a careful enough reproduction? How about the original motion pictures made by Edison and the Lumière brothers? Here is a wax cylinder recording of a song by Arthur Sullivan, made in 1888. Can the owner of the original cylinder claim a new copyright over the song or the recording, by making a careful reproduction?

Are you asking a legal question or a moral/ethical one?

Getting back to the point:

Are you going to try and create a copy of a work of art for us, and explain all of the "slavish" details and other un-original aspects?

[GlassBeadGame]

March 2009, without our client’s consent, you:

( a ) accessed our client’s database of images;

( b ) downloaded more than 3,300 high resolution images from our client’s database;

( c ) circumvented the technical measures that our client put in place on its website to prevent those high resolution images from being copied; and

( d ) uploaded those images to the Wikipedia website.

That this pseudonym methodically and with means intended to thwart NPGs efforts at limiting access to material on it's site took over three thousand images will eventually be fully developed. This is not some kids that downloaded 3 songs on Limewire and it would seem to me that he asked to be made an example of by this sustained course of action. I don't completely understand the means employed but NPG's counsel obviously does understand this in detail. An attorney has taken the time to educate him/herself in this wonkery. Do you think that is because they plan to go away? NPG might consider complementing this action with attempts to convince USA prosecuting authorities to pursue computer intrusion charges. The pseudonym violated the NPG site's terms of service. This was in itself enough to sustain a conviction in the Megan Meiers' case. That was a trial court matter and probably not very good law. That case was based on simply providing false information in a user profile. Here we have additional technical steps taken to circumvent limiting access. This is much more like "hacking" than the defendant's action in the Meiers' matter.

In any event maybe the "free culture" fanatics ought to consider the end impact if the pseudonym gets away with this. Galleries in NPG's position will simply not put images on line and everyone will suffer for the arrogant selfishness.

[LessHorrid vanU]

And do you think that people who stage Oscar Wilde or G&S or Shakespeare plays should be paying royalties to the heirs?

Try uploading Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet to Wikipedia and see how far you get? Maybe that should be free as well?

Um, you do need a Performing License to produce plays for money, which is why schools and charitable causes can do it (if they charge entrance it must be for the cause and not the performance) without problem but AmDram societies cannot.

So? I know someone who is "into" the local Amateur Dramatical Society, and she happens to be a butch dyke - so my credibility is not compromised!

[taiwopanfob]

In any event maybe the "free culture" fanatics ought to consider the end impact if the psuedonym gets away with this. Galleries in NPG position will simply not put images on line and everyone will suffer for the arrogant selfishness.

If the NPG removes the online images would it not come to pass that Wikipedia would have to remove their copies too, due to a lack of verifiability? Or will a Special Exception be made?

[LessHorrid vanU]

Thinking about this - and following a comment made earlier - they may have a case as regards the database being abused; either they created the database and/or the methods used in storing the media within it, or they have purchased the software and have a license for its usage and restrictions (even if voluntary) as regards access to it and the information contained.

It may be that even if the original work or its photographic derivative cannot be copyrighted, its digitilised stored form and the software used in storing and accessing it can be?

(Disclaimer; I am not a legal practitioner, and, simply coincidentally, once worked from an address very close to Lincoln Inn Fields.)

[Grep]

Well this would all be extremely hilarious if it were not for the fact that as a UK taxpayer I helped to pay for the photographs that Derrick Coetzee copied. But I liked Georgewilliamherbert's block notice

Due to this legal threat at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dco...PG_legal_threat emailed from this account, this account is indefinitely blocked from the English Language Wikipedia. Our policy on legal threats on Wikipedia is that such actions are prohibited and immediate cause for indefinite ban on editing.

As you have been using Wikipedia email functions to email legal threats the ability of this account to use email will be blocked as well.

Please contact Mike Godwin at the Wikimedia Foundation for any further discussion on the copyright claim you have asserted.

Hilariously, GWH can't tell the difference between a block and a ban. He forgot to say that according to WP:NLT, the block, although indefinite, lasts while legal threats are outstanding. I also liked the twist whereby NPG is told to contact WMF, even though WMF has of course already refused to reply to them.

Does Dcoetzee really think WMF will pay for his legal costs? All support short of actual help would be my prediction.

[taiwopanfob]

Does Dcoetzee really think WMF will pay for his legal costs? All support short of actual help would be my prediction.

Another good question: if Dcoetzee decides he doesn't want to take the risk and (say) enters into a settlement with the NPG that says everyone walks away on the precondition the pictures must come down, then how does he get the WMF to follow along? We can take it as a given that ninnies like David Gerard will refuse a request for deletion "out of principle".

But then again, maybe the WMF likes Dcoetzee, or maybe even they realize the significant damage to image (or any other) contributions by allowing an editor to hang out to dry like this, and would take them down.

But suppose the WMF, for some reason, hated Dcoetzee? About the only recourse he would have would be to sue the WMF, which would effectively double his costs, aggravation, and loss of sleep. Of course, this would result in him being indefinitely blocked by GWH -- legal threats and all that.


This post has been edited by taiwopanfob:

[MZMcBride]

Everybody agrees that the original images are in the public domain. As far as I can see, this is about faithful reproductions of the original works. (Of course feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.)

The National Portrait Gallery has spent time, money, resources, energy, etc. to make replicas of these works, removing dust, bad shadows, etc. in order to make the replicas look as similar to the originals as possible. This seems to be undisputed.

The part I find amusing is that the NPG is deliberately trying to not make a derivative work, yet still wants to claim that they hold rights over the images. They're trying to make as close a copy of a work that everybody agrees is in the public domain. I agree that the National Portrait Gallery should be commended for their restoration and preservation work, but I don't for a moment believe that they can try to make an exact copy of a work and then claim to hold special rights to it. It seems almost paradoxical to me.

Now, I have no idea if U.S. or UK law would support my twisted thoughts. I'm not a lawyer and unlike others on the Internet I won't pretend to understand copyright law. But I did find at least this aspect quite amusing.

[Push the button]

Another good question: if Dcoetzee decides he doesn't want to take the risk and (say) enters into a settlement with the NPG that says everyone walks away on the precondition the pictures must come down, then how does he get the WMF to follow along?

Simple answer is that he wouldn't (unless he was foolish or badly advised) enter into a settlement under which he agreed to procure something happen (the deletion of the pictures) that wasn't entirely under his control - unless WMF also entered into the settlement to confirm that it would, upon the settlement taking effect, delete the images (and presumably any re-uploads thereof).

[dtobias]

Nobody has any business agreeing to things, in a settlement agreement or otherwise, that they have no power over in the first place.

[Grep]

Nobody has any business agreeing to things, in a settlement agreement or otherwise, that they have no power over in the first place.

Suggesting that he may not have been well advised in the first place, in doing something that was beyond his power to reverse.

[taiwopanfob]

The part I find amusing is that the NPG is deliberately trying to not make a derivative work, yet still wants to claim that they hold rights over the images. They're trying to make as close a copy of a work that everybody agrees is in the public domain. I agree that the National Portrait Gallery should be commended for their restoration and preservation work, but I don't for a moment believe that they can try to make an exact copy of a work and then claim to hold special rights to it. It seems almost paradoxical to me.

If they can not claim "special rights" to their work, then you will probably never see the images again. What's in it for them?

[Kato]

I agree that the National Portrait Gallery should be commended for their restoration and preservation work, but I don't for a moment believe that they can try to make an exact copy of a work and then claim to hold special rights to it. It seems almost paradoxical to me.

They are clearly not exact copies. They are small photographic representations.

Nobody has any business agreeing to things, in a settlement agreement or otherwise, that they have no power over in the first place.

They have power over their representations. They don't have power over your representations.

[MZMcBride]

The part I find amusing is that the NPG is deliberately trying to not make a derivative work, yet still wants to claim that they hold rights over the images. They're trying to make as close a copy of a work that everybody agrees is in the public domain. I agree that the National Portrait Gallery should be commended for their restoration and preservation work, but I don't for a moment believe that they can try to make an exact copy of a work and then claim to hold special rights to it. It seems almost paradoxical to me.

If they can not claim "special rights" to their work, then you will probably never see the images again. What's in it for them?

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.

[taiwopanfob]

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?

[dtobias]

In the U.S., anything produced by federal government workers in the course of their work is considered public domain, I guess on the theory that if your tax money paid for it, it shouldn't be considered proprietary.

[tarantino]

All the NPG images on Commons have been tagged with Template:Copyfraud. This template was originally called Copyright claims but the barrister Mike Lifeguard felt that wasn't accurate.

Current revision as of 04:35, 11 July 2009

While Commons policy accepts the use of this media; its copyright status in its country of origin may be disputed. One or more third-parties have made potentially invalid copyright claims in relation to the work from which this is sourced, or a purely mechanical reproduction thereof. This may be due to recognition of the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, allowing works to be eligible for protection through skill and labour and not purely by originality such as in the United States (where Wikimedia Commons is hosted).

As such, use of this image in the jurisdiction of the claimant may be regarded as copyright infringement. Before using this content, please ensure that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's copyright.

Please note: This is not a copyright tag. A valid license is needed in addition to this tag.

[One]

I'm going to ignore your irrelevant strawman arguments, and instead ask two questions.

1. Should proprietary interests be indefinite, and if so, what distinguishes artistic innovation from technical innovation? Why is it acceptable for the NPG to claim exclusive use to reproduce portraits that are in the public domain, when pharmaceutical companies only get 21 (or 25) years to exclusively market a drug?

Funny that you ignore strawmen by asking one. They aren't claiming that right. They are claiming that the digital photographs they created are theirs; the same photographs that were directly taken from their site. Nothing stops Wikipedia from using an older photograph which may be in the public domain, or even snapping one of their own. Once copyright on these photos expires, they're gone. Jeez.

Oh, and this case would be a loser under US law, but I'm not sure why users keep citing US concepts like "sweat of the brow." I have no idea about Britain; maybe they would recognize copyrights in reproductions. Doesn't the EU allow crazy non-original stuff like rights in databases? Might not be as frivolous as folks here seem to think, but I would still bet they lose. Just even money though.

Apparently, the WMF has already considered this claim, and might fight it (with publicity):

To put it plainly, WMF's position has always been that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain. If museums and galleries not only claim copyright on reproductions, but also control the access to the ability to reproduce pictures (by prohibiting photos, etc.), important historical works that are legally in the public domain can be made inaccessible to the public except through gatekeepers.

WMF has made it clear that in the absence of even a strong legal complaint, we don't think it's a good idea to dignify such claims of copyright on public domain works. And, if we ever were seriously legally challenged, we would have a good internal debate about whether we'd fight such a case, and build publicity around it. This is neither a policy change (at least from WMF's point of view), nor is it a change that has implications for other Commons policies. --Erik Möller 01:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This post has been edited by One:

[GlassBeadGame]

All the NPG images on Commons have been tagged with Template:Copyfraud. This template was originally called Copyright claims but the barrister Mike Lifeguard felt that wasn't accurate.

Current revision as of 04:35, 11 July 2009

While Commons policy accepts the use of this media; its copyright status in its country of origin may be disputed. One or more third-parties have made potentially invalid copyright claims in relation to the work from which this is sourced, or a purely mechanical reproduction thereof. This may be due to recognition of the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, allowing works to be eligible for protection through skill and labour and not purely by originality such as in the United States (where Wikimedia Commons is hosted).

As such, use of this image in the jurisdiction of the claimant may be regarded as copyright infringement. Before using this content, please ensure that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's copyright.

Please note: This is not a copyright tag. A valid license is needed in addition to this tag.

There seems to be no end to their arrogance. This has got to make NPG's council have second thoughts about the more or less conciliatory approach they have taken so far. I can see no reason why they should not make an example out their hapless little friend. They may also take down some others who make downstream use of the images due to an improper warning and an overly confident assessment of NPG's claim.

[dogbiscuit]

It strikes me that the fundamental issue that the freedophiles have no answer to is: regardless of the subtleties of copyright law, when someone goes to effort and expense to make something available that was not otherwise available, why do they consider it their right to take the fruits of that labour for nothing?

It seems to me that the Commons copyfraud statement is essentially typical American arrogance of imposing American standards on the rest of the world (because, regardless of it being an international effort, Wikipediots invariably fall back on an American view of how things should be done and assume that other points of view are irrelevant). I wonder, however, what they feel about China and Russia's approach to copyright on American designs where they take a more carefree view? The copyfraud statement essentially legitimises cross-border theft, yet the same approach is taken by Russia to ignore other countries' claims on copyright.

A further issue is that there is a loss of value as soon as such pictures get into Wikipedia - fundamentally it is a question of being a reliable source. Once in the Commons, people are free to hack about. Sourced from the NPG for example, we have a reasonable expectation that the picture is what it claims to be. There can be no assumption that in 1, 5, 20 or 100 years the Wikipediots have enough common sense to ensure that the Commons repository is not corrupted - Wikipediots with the zeal to colorize photographs in grey, or de-speckle a picture of [Insert freckly person of your era here] so rather than free pictures we have corrupted information.

Another minor point with regard to re-digitization, the music industry tends to renew copyright when they do a re-master of their product, even though the intent is to produce something that sounds exactly like the original only more so.

[SB_Johnny]

I'm not sure what I think about this case, but a lot of effort has gone into building good relationships with museums lately. For example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...us_Views_of_Edo

Makes me wonder if the NPG bothered to try to start a conversation with the MWF before sicking the lawyers on them.

[tarantino]

I'm not sure what I think about this case, but a lot of effort has gone into building good relationships with museums lately. For example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...us_Views_of_Edo

Makes me wonder if the NPG bothered to try to start a conversation with the MWF before sicking the lawyers on them.

You really need to catch up and read the letter sent to Derrick.

This is a message from Farrer & Co LLP (Ref: JPW/ALM) 66 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London, WC2A 3LH, UK). We are a firm of London based solicitors (lawyers) who act for the National Portrait Gallery in London.

...

Our client contacted the Wikimedia Foundation in April 2009 to request that the images be removed but the Wikimedia Foundation has refused to do so leaving our client with no option but to commence legal proceedings against you personally through the UK Courts.

[thekohser]

This is a message from Farrer & Co LLP (Ref: JPW/ALM) 66 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London, WC2A 3LH, UK). We are a firm of London based solicitors (lawyers) who act for the National Portrait Gallery in London.

...

Our client contacted the Wikimedia Foundation in April 2009 to request that the images be removed but the Wikimedia Foundation has refused to do so leaving our client with no option but to commence legal proceedings against you personally through the UK Courts.

That is too funny. Once again, the Foundation leaves its most loyal among the Hive hanging out to dry. All the money is kept at Stillman Street, all the work gets done by volunteers, and when trouble comes knockin'... volunteers, you're on your own. Sue and company are too busy counting the money.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[zvook]

I'm not sure what I think about this case, but a lot of effort has gone into building good relationships with museums lately. For example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...us_Views_of_Edo

Makes me wonder if the NPG bothered to try to start a conversation with the MWF before sicking the lawyers on them.

You really need to catch up and read the letter sent to Derrick.

This is a message from Farrer & Co LLP (Ref: JPW/ALM) 66 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London, WC2A 3LH, UK). We are a firm of London based solicitors (lawyers) who act for the National Portrait Gallery in London.

...

Our client contacted the Wikimedia Foundation in April 2009 to request that the images be removed but the Wikimedia Foundation has refused to do so leaving our client with no option but to commence legal proceedings against you personally through the UK Courts.

Not just that, but in the discussion SB links to, a user says to "Please remember the case of the National Portrait Gallery", linking to an interesting 2008 deletion debate (a result of a user's comprehensive breakdown of UK law on this point).

The deletion debate was ended by postings by Godwin and Jimbo which instructed Commons to treat UK law basically as "copyfraud" to be ignored.

You'll note from Godwin's posting that there was attempted but ignored conversation by the NPG before July 2008.

[TungstenCarbide]

It also takes skill and expensive equipment to machine a fine bearing race. That doesn't mean the machinist owns a copyright on it. Why should it be so for a photograph of a masterpiece? 'Creativity' is inherent in copyright law.

Where the hell is NYB when we need him.

No but the company that employs that person owns the copyright.

On the supposedly complex legal situation, the letter supposedly from Farrers refers to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk...880048_en_2#pt1

which says

Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work—
(a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,
[...]
where "artistic work” means—
(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality,"

Yes, there is a creativity requirement for copyrights. Nobody owns a copyright on a well machined bearing race; not the machinist nor the company that employs him, regardless of the skill or expensive equipment required. It's not a creative work.

The national gallery is trying to say the photographer's skill merits copyright, and they are using that technicality to hijack the value of the original paintings.

[taiwopanfob]

The national gallery is trying to say the photographer's skill merits copyright, and they are using that technicality to hijack the value of the original paintings.

Aren't the Wikipediots highjacking the value of the paintings, and the efforts of the photographers, and even the NPG itself?

In any case, the NPG is quoting UK law, and it appears they are quoting it accurately. If you take the few minutes to read the analysis offered by MichaleMaggs, referenced by zvook (above), you won't sound as ignorant as you do right now.

[GlassBeadGame]

Yes, there is a creativity requirement for copyrights. Nobody owns a copyright on a well machined bearing race; not the machinist nor the company that employs him, regardless of the skill or expensive equipment required. It's not a creative work.

The national gallery is trying to say the photographer's skill merits copyright, and they are using that technicality to hijack the value of the original paintings.

How many times are you going to spout the same cliche over and over again? The potential plaintiff believes this argument is hollow and fully intents to bring action in a jurisdiction that isn't bound by the authority that accepts that argument. That photographs using great skill to accurately depict other works of art are selected and grouped by professionals highly skilled and trained in the selection and categorization of artistic works into a database should be consider an original act of creation deserving of copyright protection is hardly a specious argument.

WMF and the pseudonym who intruded into the NPG's website to appropriate these works and the free culture fanatics who cheer them on can disparage these claims all they want but in the end they don't get to decide.

[Kato]

The national gallery is trying to say the photographer's skill merits copyright, and they are using that technicality to hijack the value of the original paintings.

Aren't the Wikipediots highjacking the value of the paintings, and the efforts of the photographers, and even the NPG itself?

In any case, the NPG is quoting UK law, and it appears they are quoting it accurately. If you take the few minutes to read the analysis offered by MichaleMaggs, referenced by zvook (above), you won't sound as ignorant as you do right now.

The conclusion was as follows

I know that to many editors it will be surprising to learn that copyright can subsist in a photograph of a 2D work of art, but that has long been the case and applies (for various reasons) in quite a few countries. So far as the Common law countries are concerned, it is the US that is out of step in denying 2D photographic copyright in Bridgeman, not the other way round.
There can I think be little doubt in the light of the above that our existing policy on UK law is correct. Every one of the cases and professional opinions listed above supports that, with the exception of Deazley whose 2001 view has since been disapproved by the Court of Appeal. It is important to bear in mind that Commons policy is based on our best understanding of the relevant law, and not what we think we might be able to get away with.
Like you, I would prefer for the sake of Commons that the law was not quite as strict as it is, but we have to live with the law as we find it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

[TungstenCarbide]

Where the hell is NYB when we need him.

NYB is useless in this situation because he is on the other side of the world in a completely different legal system. We're talking about UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act here.

against someone residing in the US, about servers residing in the US

I suspect that the letter from the NPG's lawyers is a speculative threat, and they don't really have a case. However, such cases are unpredictable in the UK, and the fact that the Wikipedio knowingly circumvented the NPG's onsite restrictions will not be well received by any judge.

That might explain why they moved on the foundation and then the individual separately and at different times. Speculative probing.

Given that the National Portrait Gallery is a publicly owned institution that allows free access to visitors, my default position is to support them against the erratic behaviour of unaccountable foreigners with political agendas I don't agree with.

And the National Gallery is making money off of dead guys artwork while screwing the rightful heirs ... just a moral opinion here.

[Kato]

And the National Gallery is making money off of dead guys artwork while screwing the rightful heirs ... just a moral opinion here.

Making money? What are you talking about? It's a publicly owned institution that offers free access to all visitors. I own the National Portrait Gallery, and people fought (and still fight) to offer free access to major works of art. I want them to make money so they can keep doing it. Most galleries in Britain are free access. In contrast, the Louvre costs around 10 dollars a head.

[TungstenCarbide]

Yes, there is a creativity requirement for copyrights. Nobody owns a copyright on a well machined bearing race; not the machinist nor the company that employs him, regardless of the skill or expensive equipment required. It's not a creative work.

The national gallery is trying to say the photographer's skill merits copyright, and they are using that technicality to hijack the value of the original paintings.

How many times are you going to spout the same cliche over and over again? The potential plaintiff believes this argument is hollow and fully intents to bring action in a jurisdiction that isn't bound by the authority that accepts that argument. That photographs using great skill to accurately depict other works of art are selected and grouped by professionals highly skilled and trained in the selection and categorization of artistic works into a database should be consider an original act of creation deserving of copyright protection is hardly a specious argument.

WMF and the pseudonym who intruded into the NPG's website to appropriate these works and the free culture fanatics who cheer them on can disparage these claims all they want but in the end they don't get to decide.

That photographs using great skill to accurately depict other works of art are selected and grouped by professionals highly skilled and trained in the selection and categorization of artistic works into a database should be consider an original act of creation deserving of copyright protection is hardly a specious argument.

Yet another technicality used to speciously parlay the value of the artwork into fresh copyrights for themselves. What will those silly Britts do next?

[Kato]

I suspect that the letter from the NPG's lawyers is a speculative threat, and they don't really have a case. However, such cases are unpredictable in the UK, and the fact that the Wikipedio knowingly circumvented the NPG's onsite restrictions will not be well received by any judge.

That might explain why they moved on the foundation and then the individual separately and at different times. Speculative probing.

We've since discovered how many times they've tried to speak to the WMF with no response. So that explains why they moved to the individual.

Yet another technicality used to speciously parlay the value of the artwork into fresh copyrights for themselves. What will those silly Britts do next?

Probably tell you to learn how to spell Brits.

[TungstenCarbide]

Yet another technicality used to speciously parlay the value of the artwork into fresh copyrights for themselves. What will those silly Britts do next?

Probably tell you to learn how to spell Brits.

Hey, as long as you don't tell me to learn how to spell aluminum (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[The Wales Hunter]

The bypassing technical measures to obtain the images is an interesting one as the servers are located in the UK and a crime other than copyright infringement may have been committed

If everyone and everything involved were based in the UK this would be simple as the NPG have a clear case. But the way Wikipaedos pick and choose when to hide under Uncle Sam's skirt is rank rotten.

[dogbiscuit]

It also takes skill and expensive equipment to machine a fine bearing race. That doesn't mean the machinist owns a copyright on it. Why should it be so for a photograph of a masterpiece? 'Creativity' is inherent in copyright law.

Where the hell is NYB when we need him.

No but the company that employs that person owns the copyright.

On the supposedly complex legal situation, the letter supposedly from Farrers refers to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk...880048_en_2#pt1

which says

Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work—
(a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,
[...]
where "artistic work” means—
(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality,"

Yes, there is a creativity requirement for copyrights. Nobody owns a copyright on a well machined bearing race; not the machinist nor the company that employs him, regardless of the skill or expensive equipment required. It's not a creative work.

The national gallery is trying to say the photographer's skill merits copyright, and they are using that technicality to hijack the value of the original paintings.

Read the letter from the lawyers who are better versed in UK law than you are and you will see a clear exposition of the argument, which involves not only copyright, which does include such pictures in the UK, but also a breach of the US inspired legislation designed for the overcoming of DVD copy protection which makes it a criminal offence to evade copy protection devices which appears to be done here. The WMF might not be liable for the illegal act, but they cannot benefit from an illegal act and knowingly refusing to remove the pictures makes them an accessory.

S320 also does not apply in the UK.

The problem for WMF is that the NPG is taking a deliberate moral high ground - for, I am sure, a very good reason. They are saying, act sensibly and we will not go to law; even though you have abused us, we will work with you so as to ensure that you have access to this information in some form. This could be enough to get other institutions to act in concert against the WMF.

[tarantino]

Lar has removed Dcoetzee's administrator rights, four minutes after a request by Gmaxwell, so he won't be tempted to unilaterally delete the images.

Discussion is here.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...etzee_adminship

[Cedric]

I am rather unsure of the strategy behind the legal demand to a US citizen residing in the US, unless it is just to run a bluff, as Kato suggests. I cannot see the basis for jurisdiction. The lawyers for the NPG must have already determined that there was no way of enforcing a judgment based on UK copyright law against the WMF in a Dutch court.

[Kato]

I am rather unsure of the strategy behind the legal demand to a US citizen residing in the US, unless it is just to run a bluff, as Kato suggests. I cannot see the basis for jurisdiction. The lawyers for the NPG must have already determined that there was no way of enforcing a judgment based on UK copyright law against the WMF in a Dutch court.

True.

One point to mention, the situation is so one-sided that when a UK hacker with Aspergers broke into US military networks to look for evidence of UFOs, the US Courts managed to indict him and demand his extradition to the US to face a long prison sentence. The US also managed to extradite British citizen and idiot Abu Hamza on trumped up charges, which really amounted to 'saying nasty things about America'. Both cases caused outrage in the UK in legal circles.

When the US courts want to flex their muscles against foreign citizens, it has no qualms about doing so. But there's no chance of US citizens facing the same process themselves from a foreign court.

Lar has removed Dcoetzee's administrator rights, four minutes after a request by Gmaxwell, so he won't be tempted to unilaterally delete the images.

Discussion is here.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...etzee_adminship

Ugh, what assholes. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

[Kato]

On the desysopping:

Once you've uploaded a file it's out of your hands. You have to do a deletion request. You're at the mercy of the community. Multichill (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

So they've abandoned the uploader guy to the ludicrous whims of a dysfunctional community? You'd think Lar would have more sense and would know how erratic, irresponsible and dangerous "the community" can get.

[GlassBeadGame]

against someone residing in the US, about servers residing in the US

The pseudonym went onto NPG's website, which is hosted on servers in UK, and employed means to circumvent measure taken by NPG to prevent appropriating high resolution images in express violation of that website's terms of service. That act occurred in UK and is the basis for personal jurisdiction.

[Cedric]

I am rather unsure of the strategy behind the legal demand to a US citizen residing in the US, unless it is just to run a bluff, as Kato suggests. I cannot see the basis for jurisdiction. The lawyers for the NPG must have already determined that there was no way of enforcing a judgment based on UK copyright law against the WMF in a Dutch court.

True.

One point to mention, the situation is so one-sided that when a UK hacker with Aspergers broke into US military networks to look for evidence of UFOs, the US Courts managed to indict him and demand his extradition to the US to face a long prison sentence. The US also managed to extradite British citizen and idiot Abu Hamza on trumped up charges, which really amounted to 'saying nasty things about America'. Both cases caused outrage in the UK in legal circles.

When the US courts want to flex their muscles against foreign citizens, it has no qualms about doing so. But there's no chance of US citizens facing the same process themselves from a foreign court.

Erm, when I said "Dutch court", I was actually referring to something like this:

(IMG:http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/9779/onlinebild.jpg)

NOT this:

(IMG:http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/7889/officialportraitofpresi.jpg)

It is a basic principle of international law that extradition treaties are to be enforced reciprocally. If there is a lack of reciprocity between the US and the UK in this regard, I was not previously aware of it, but I can understand why UK lawyers would be upset about it. If I were among their number, I would be upset as well.

Lar has removed Dcoetzee's administrator rights, four minutes after a request by Gmaxwell, so he won't be tempted to unilaterally delete the images.

Discussion is here.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...etzee_adminship

But of course. The ideological purity of the wiki must be maintained at all costs!

(IMG:http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/59/strangeloveripper1yx5.jpg)

"Sit down Dcoetzee. We need to talk."

[taiwopanfob]

Lar has removed Dcoetzee's administrator rights[/url], four minutes after a request by Gmaxwell, so he won't be tempted to unilaterally delete the images.

Let's cut the bullshit here: the WMF is afraid that the "admin" bit Dcoetzee has can be used to argue the WMF has liability. Employee status, that kind of thing.

By shit-canning Dcoetzee -- in effect, firing him -- the WMF is doing its due diligence to protect its own ass in the event of a lawsuit. "We didn't authorise that, and look, we ditched him as soon as we realised the error."

As Multichill notes, that Dcoetzee is to be thrown to the legal wolves is his problem now -- the 'community' will simply sit back and watch, popcorn in hand. Already a few people have stepped up for offers of legal aid. Unfortunately, $20 ain't going get you much, Dcoetzee.

SERIOUS LESSON BEING LEARNED: do not, ever, EVER, upload anything you did not create to any Wikimedia project. Regardless of the copyright status. Just don't do it.. Let Gmaxwell, Lar and other WMF functionaries "take the piss" on that front. If the WMF had any shred of honesty, and respect for its contributors, this message would be a big, bright, flashing warning on every upload page, to be doubly confirmed, and the copyright patrol would become a much simpler authorship check instead.

This post has been edited by taiwopanfob:

[GlassBeadGame]

There has been difficulty in enforcing UK defamation judgments in the US because of First Amendment concerns regarding differences in standard of liability and chilling effect on speech. In copyright I see no important policy differences, just drawing differing lines. Generally there are provisions for enforcing foreign judgments in the US providing the process is fair. What is this "Dutch case" referenced above? Does any have a citation or link?

[dogbiscuit]

Lar has removed Dcoetzee's administrator rights[/url], four minutes after a request by Gmaxwell, so he won't be tempted to unilaterally delete the images.

Let's cut the bullshit here: the WMF is afraid that the "admin" bit Dcoetzee has can be used to argue the WMF has liability. Employee status, that kind of thing.

By shit-canning Dcoetzee -- in effect, firing him -- the WMF is doing its due diligence to protect its own ass in the event of a lawsuit. "We didn't authorise that, and look, we ditched him as soon as we realised the error."

I think Lar's actions make WMF's liability worse, if you follow your logic to its conclusion. Lar is effectively taking responsibility for ensuring that Dcoetzee cannot rectify his alleged theft, and ensuring that the responsibility becomes the whole of Wikipedia's not Dcoetzee. Also, it gives lie to the "can't break it so do what you will" philosophy of Wikipedia. So what if the images are deleted - surely they can be restored? So why is there any need to withdraw rights. Withdraw the bit for bringing WMF into disrepute as a repository of stolen goods, but don't take the bit away for something that reputedly can be fixed.

[Lar]

Lar has removed Dcoetzee's administrator rights, four minutes after a request by Gmaxwell, so he won't be tempted to unilaterally delete the images.

Discussion is here.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...etzee_adminship

As a note, that wasn't my reason, but if you would like to think it was, go ahead.

Let's cut the bullshit here: the WMF is afraid that the "admin" bit Dcoetzee has can be used to argue the WMF has liability. Employee status, that kind of thing.

That wasn't why either, but if you would like to think it was, go ahead.

I think Lar's actions make WMF's liability worse, if you follow your logic to its conclusion. Lar is effectively taking responsibility for ensuring that Dcoetzee cannot rectify his alleged theft, and ensuring that the responsibility becomes the whole of Wikipedia's not Dcoetzee. Also, it gives lie to the "can't break it so do what you will" philosophy of Wikipedia. So what if the images are deleted - surely they can be restored? So why is there any need to withdraw rights. Withdraw the bit for bringing WMF into disrepute as a repository of stolen goods, but don't take the bit away for something that reputedly can be fixed.

Admin deletion makes something not publicly visible. Except to other admins.
Oversight makes something not visible, even to admins. Except to other oversighters.

The only way to truly delete something from WMF servers is to actually truly delete it, that is, go and find the files and nuke them, and find the database links from the File:blabla.jpg to the file itself, and nuke those, which requires developer access. Everything else is just setting visibility flags on various pieces of data that remain in the DB.

GMaxwell's request pointed out that Dc was being put in a potential conflict of interest, he might feel pressured to do something that, in actuality, would not resolve NPG's claim, in that it does not actually satisfy their request for deletion. Removing that conflict of interest lessens the pressure on Dc... if you then analyse the situation to infer that it thus increases the pressure on WMF... no comment, except suffice it to say that I don't like volunteers being left out to dry.

I think I have a reputation for doing fairly sensible things, most of the time. I think this was a sensible thing to do or I wouldn't have done it. I could be wrong.

The action is reversible by any steward or any Commons 'crat.

I doubt that avoiding WMF liability was your motive, but you do seem to be leaving the sphere or reasonable and moderate folk and joining the ranks of free culture nutters.

Gosh I hope not.

Speaking purely as myself and without any particular standing to make anything come out any particular way... the NPG expended time and effort and money to make these high quality images. It wasn't zero cost to them to make them or to host them. By analogy, the GPL makes provisions for paying "copying costs", and most people agree that's reasonable... the information is free, but you pay something to help defray costs of bringing it to you.

We had a discussion a while back regarding the Edo images, in which a different museum asked politely that Commons not host their very high quality images, because doing so cut into their revenue stream. In exchange, they offered to give Commons some medium quality images instead... way good enough for illustrative purposes. I was among those arguing FOR the deletion of those images (as was SB Johnny). I think that's the right thing to do. Even if the subject art is public domain, work nicely with the organization that has the images to find a good compromise.

Because while the art itself might be PD, it is fair to ask for compensation of some sort for the resource expended to do something to preserve and present the art. At least in my view. If I were a UK taxpayer I would be happy that the NPG was sheperding taxpayer dollars wisely by trying to raise some revenue to defray their expenses.

My hope is that the NPG offers up medium resolution images, that they are accepted as replacements, and that all the images carry a big banner on their description page saying "if you want really nifty hires versions of these, go (here, a link on the NPG site) and donate to get acces, or buy some awesome prints" or something like that...

(I would also hope the NPG drops its no photography rule)

[GlassBeadGame]

Lar has removed Dcoetzee's administrator rights, four minutes after a request by Gmaxwell, so he won't be tempted to unilaterally delete the images.

Discussion is here.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...etzee_adminship

As a note, that wasn't my reason, but if you would like to think it was, go ahead.

Let's cut the bullshit here: the WMF is afraid that the "admin" bit Dcoetzee has can be used to argue the WMF has liability. Employee status, that kind of thing.

That wasn't why either.

I doubt that avoiding WMF liability was your motive, but you do seem to be leaving the sphere or reasonable and moderate folk and joining the ranks of free culture nutters.

[Selina]

http://www.npg.org.uk/about/FAQ/how-much-i...ction-worth.php

a public institution

Couldn't find much information on funding, but as entrance is free I am guessing it's either entirely or mostly taxpayer money... Not very ethical of them to be so draconian about people being able to view the art from there without needing to visit their website, that's more how you'd expect a for-profit corporation to act...

[One]

That wasn't why either.

I doubt that avoiding WMF liability was your motive, but you do seem to be leaving the sphere or reasonable and moderate folk and joining the ranks of free culture nutters.

Hmm? He hopes they get medium res version to delete the hires. A free culture nutter would keep the hires pics and "subversively" upload them across the internet.

[taiwopanfob]

Let's cut the bullshit here: the WMF is afraid that the "admin" bit Dcoetzee has can be used to argue the WMF has liability. Employee status, that kind of thing.

That wasn't why either, but if you would like to think it was, go ahead.

Where would we be if it wasn't for Lar bestowing upon people the rights they normally have? How did we ever get along before he arrived on the scene?

Admin deletion makes something not publicly visible. Except to other admins.
Oversight makes something not visible, even to admins. Except to other oversighters.

The only way to truly delete something from WMF servers is to actually truly delete it, that is, go and find the files and nuke them, and find the database links from the File:blabla.jpg to the file itself, and nuke those, which requires developer access. Everything else is just setting visibility flags on various pieces of data that remain in the DB.

GMaxwell's request pointed out that Dc was being put in a potential conflict of interest, he might feel pressured to do something that, in actuality, would not resolve NPG's claim, in that it does not actually satisfy their request for deletion. Removing that conflict of interest lessens the pressure on Dc... if you then analyse the situation to infer that it thus increases the pressure on WMF... no comment, except suffice it to say that I don't like volunteers being left out to dry.

I think I have a reputation for doing fairly sensible things, most of the time. I think this was a sensible thing to do or I wouldn't have done it. I could be wrong.

Well, Lar, you are simply wrong, and you must know this.

The NPG doesn't care a fuck how the WMF/Dcoetzee stops serving those files.

Not the slightest! Really! If, when deleting things, little magic WMF fairies are told to intercept the database queries and re-write them, if the disks have to be dropped into incinerators, or setting little delete flags, or making the proper chants to the Great Database Gods, they don't care.

All they care about is that the files will not be served anymore.

So if Dcoetzee did wake up with the realization he is about to start living in a world of shit because, at one point he felt the WMF would stand up for him, but now realizes it won't, then him organizing the data structures at the WMF so the files "disappear" would in fact satisfy NPG completely.

Again, you, and by extension, the WMF must know this is true.

Naturally, you or Gmaxwell or David Gerard or even the Jimbo himself can just go an reset the flags, re-upload the content, or any other reversal of the reverse ... but that gets you into the "taking the piss" department, doesn't it? Something which I'm pretty sure none of you are willing to undertake.

I wonder why? (He asks rhetorically).

This leads straight to the issue as to why your blather about "conflict of interest" is disgustingly disingenuous. In essence, everyone at the WMF is permitted plausible deniability, protection, conflict or not, but poor Dcoetzee is no longer permitted any option to reverse his mistake, on the grounds of "conflict of interest". This logic is especially odious due to basic WMF that editors are liable for all content they add. Of course, this is not widely known to contributors at large (which may explain why Dcoetzee did what he did). What this means is that Dcoetzee is "on his own", which means that, in practice, and in direct contradiction to your claim, he is actually in no conflict of interest, since he has no interest in the project, while he does have a massive interest in his house or other property he currently owns.

Lar, you are a smart guy. So is Gmaxwell. A lot of you are. But what you are doing is is wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels, and your arguments are not even passing a simple sniff test. Stop drinking that kool-aid and do the right thing:

1) erase all the images NPG wants deleted, but whatever process you like
2) Dcoetzee and NPG can then shake hands and part company,
3) choose, among you, someone and let them re-upload the images and "take the piss"

It is the only honorable action.

[Floydsvoid]

I'm not a lawyer but I have been on jury duty three times.

I don't think Kato's extradition examples are pertinent. In the US there is a distinction between criminal and civil court. This is purely a civil matter whereas the examples were criminal.

As far as downloading images go, my opinion is this: if your http client engages in a valid http protocol connection with a server and the server honours your HTTP GET requests, then it seems unreasonable to me that you have done something that you shouldn't have. But I don't write the laws.

It still boggles my mind that certain sequences pressed on your keyboard can get you in trouble. I like to think of it as My cat can get me arrested or sued by walking on my keyboard effect. This is related to illegal numbers.

Poking around on http://www.npg.org.uk/ I've yet to find the hi-res pictures or the TOS. I'll keep looking.

I work as a contractor for a .gov agency. There's this feeling (don't know if it's official policy or not) that non-sensitive information produced by the agency or its contractors (on its behalf) should be public domain because the public paid for it.

[Cedric]

I wonder if this guy is going to get a letter, too?

[Eva Destruction]

Poking around on http://www.npg.org.uk/ I've yet to find the hi-res pictures or the TOS. I'll keep looking.

I have a feeling they're taken from this CD-ROM, not from the website. (If the hi-res images were online, there'd be no need for them to sell the CD, after all.)

[tarantino]

GMaxwell's request pointed out that Dc was being put in a potential conflict of interest, he might feel pressured to do something that, in actuality, would not resolve NPG's claim, in that it does not actually satisfy their request for deletion. Removing that conflict of interest lessens the pressure on Dc... if you then analyse the situation to infer that it thus increases the pressure on WMF... no comment, except suffice it to say that I don't like volunteers being left out to dry.

Transparency

Requests for steward action should be made on the relevant steward request page. When a community asks that rights be changed, a link should be provided to the page where the action was discussed and agreed upon by the community. Steward activity is visible in the Meta logs. When a request is fulfilled, stewards should note this on the Meta request page, and ideally on the local request page if there is one.

So, where was the community discussion that ended with a decision to remove rights from Dcoetzee? All I see is Gmaxwell asking, and you removing his rights 4 minutes later.

[Lar]

That wasn't why either.

I doubt that avoiding WMF liability was your motive, but you do seem to be leaving the sphere or reasonable and moderate folk and joining the ranks of free culture nutters.

Hmm? He hopes they get medium res version to delete the hires. A free culture nutter would keep the hires pics and "subversively" upload them across the internet.

Note that my comment saying what my hope is... was edited in after GBG made the post following mine (else how could I have responded to his post in a post above his). No harm no foul.

[GlassBeadGame]

Hmm? He hopes they get medium res version to delete the hires. A free culture nutter would keep the hires pics and "subversively" upload them across the internet.

I wasn't concerned with his "hope." I was speaking of his action in de-admin-ing "Dcoetzee" which can only serve to harden positions on all sides. At this point NPG's counsel have a response that consists of WMF declining discussion or even response, the intruder of their website turning not to prudent council but to "the community" for advice, that community labeling their attempts at asserting a copyright "copyfraud," and now another interloper (our very own Lar) taking action that would make even a token gesture of conciliation impossible.

I don't understand the persistence, even among some pretty strong reviewers, that Farrer & Co are somehow bluffing or are going to go away. They offered a non-monetary settlement to what might have been a misguided kid. This was decency not weakness. By now they should be becoming aware of the kind of people they are dealing with. Also I hope they begin some approach to NPG's friends in media before the libertarian techie press digs in and defines the narrative. If not they might be the next victims of the skull dance.

[Lar]

So, where was the community discussion that ended with a decision to remove rights from Dcoetzee? All I see is Gmaxwell asking, and you removing his rights 4 minutes later.

Stewards act on requests that don't have preceding community discussion all the time.

[GlassBeadGame]

That wasn't why either.

I doubt that avoiding WMF liability was your motive, but you do seem to be leaving the sphere or reasonable and moderate folk and joining the ranks of free culture nutters.

Hmm? He hopes they get medium res version to delete the hires. A free culture nutter would keep the hires pics and "subversively" upload them across the internet.

Note that my comment saying what my hope is... was edited in after GBG made the post following mine (else how could I have responded to his post in a post above his). No harm no foul.

Yes I think I did something wrong with the post but I'm not sure what. Is it now restored?

[Lar]

Yes I think I did something wrong with the post but I'm not sure what. Is it now restored?

I do not think you did anything wrong. Maybe I did (stylistically), in that I was doing an omnibus reply (citing multiple people and replying to them) and I tucked your reply to it back into the post itself to keep all the stuff together... messes with causality but it looks neater.

Sorry for any confusion that may have caused.

I wasn't concerned with his "hope." I was speaking of his action in de-admin-ing "Dcoetzee" which can only serve to harden positions on all sides. At this point NPG's counsel have a response that consists of WMF declining discussion or even response, the intruder of their website turning not to prudent council but to "the community" for advice, that community labeling their attempts at asserting a copyright "copyfraud," and now another interloper (our very own Lar) taking action that would make even a token gesture of conciliation impossible.

I don't think that's true. They said they are going after Dc because WMF isn't responding. I'd rather WMF responds appropriately and that a compromise be worked out as I outlined. Dc deleting the images does nothing to satisfy their request that the images be removed completely, Commons has almost 300 admins who still could see them... but there still might be pressure applied to Dc anyway. Now, not so much.

Well, Lar, you are simply wrong, and you must know this.

...

Lar, you are a smart guy.

Smart but wrong, eh? Ok, got it, thanks for clearing that up.

[dogbiscuit]

Poking around on http://www.npg.org.uk/ I've yet to find the hi-res pictures or the TOS. I'll keep looking.

I have a feeling they're taken from this CD-ROM, not from the website. (If the hi-res images were online, there'd be no need for them to sell the CD, after all.)

Which gets back to the DVD copy protection issue - and it is a criminal offence in the US, as well as the EU, even to provide instructions on how to circumvent copy protection devices. (Doesn't mean I am in agreement with this draconian approach, but it is not enough for the freedophile to simply say "I don't like it therefore the law does not apply to me).

Wikipedia are in an extremely immoral position. They have taken pictures where they clearly know that they have been obtained by an illegal method from a product in breach of its licensing conditions, yet they are quite happy to be the recipients.

The daft thing is that you can quite happily get images of the pictures in question from their web site. I think the fact that they are very high resolution images of quality would make a significant difference in court. This is not about setting information free, it is about stealing other people's work.

I shudder to think that this bunch of miscreants with no moral compass are seeking to take charge of our cultural heritage.

[taiwopanfob]

I don't think that's true. They said they are going after Dc because WMF isn't responding. I'd rather WMF responds appropriately and that a compromise be worked out as I outlined.

Lar, everything you say is making you look more and more foolish.

Due to your action, dcoetzee can no longer defend himself in a forum controlled by the WMF, which means compromise is now impossible. You know this is true. Your action was intended to defend the WMF, not Dcoetzee. Your only reasonable actions left are:

0) give Dcoetzee his bit back, if he wants it
1) let him delete the files, if he wants to
2) go ahead and eradicate everything, if you feel like it
3) the WMF can then choose its own willing victim to re-upload the content, and proceed to lock horns with the NPG

Anything else will leave a seriously bad taste in the mouth of this editor, as well as many others. Why should I put my property at risk uploading content that isn't mine? Why should anyone, given they can't even correct a mistake in judgment?

This post has been edited by taiwopanfob:

[tarantino]

Poking around on http://www.npg.org.uk/ I've yet to find the hi-res pictures or the TOS. I'll keep looking.

I have a feeling they're taken from this CD-ROM, not from the website. (If the hi-res images were online, there'd be no need for them to sell the CD, after all.)

The full resolution version of Charles Abbot, 1st Baron Colchester by John Hoppner on Commons is 1.12 MB. Dcoetzee said the source was http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/p...6&eDate=&lDate= .
If you click on the "larger image" link, that file size is 53.5 KB. Either the NPG was, but is no longer providing the high resolution version at that link, or Dcoetzee got the image from somewhere else.

[taiwopanfob]

Smart but wrong, eh? Ok, got it, thanks for clearing that up.

Well, if you can't tell the difference between ignorant and stupid, then maybe you are in fact stupid. Go ahead, try talking a bit more: evidence is always useful.


This post has been edited by taiwopanfob:

[GlassBeadGame]

Poking around on http://www.npg.org.uk/ I've yet to find the hi-res pictures or the TOS. I'll keep looking.

I have a feeling they're taken from this CD-ROM, not from the website. (If the hi-res images were online, there'd be no need for them to sell the CD, after all.)

The full resolution version of Charles Abbot, 1st Baron Colchester by John Hoppner on Commons is 1.12 MB. Dcoetzee said the source was http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/p...6&eDate=&lDate= .
If you click on the "larger image" link, that file size is 53.5 KB. Either the NPG was, but is no longer providing the high resolution version at that link, or Dcoetzee got the image from somewhere else.

As you know, the images from our client’s website that you have copied were made available from our client’s website using “Zoomify” software. As you know, Zoomify is an application that is used to publish photographic images in such a way that an entire high resolution image is never made available to a user although high-resolution extracts or “tiles” are made available one-at-a-time. Our client used the Zoomify technology to protect our client’s copyright in the high resolution images.

Is it possible that "Dcoetzee" somehow combined a series of "detail" tiles together? Does NPG still permit the use "Zoomify" or perhaps they disabled this to prevent further intrusions? If so "free culture" has already lessened the amount of information available to "want to to be free."

1.12 MB strikes me as very large, even for a high resolution image, which would fit with an assembled image explanation.

[Eva Destruction]

Poking around on http://www.npg.org.uk/ I've yet to find the hi-res pictures or the TOS. I'll keep looking.

I have a feeling they're taken from this CD-ROM, not from the website. (If the hi-res images were online, there'd be no need for them to sell the CD, after all.)

Which gets back to the DVD copy protection issue - and it is a criminal offence in the US, as well as the EU, even to provide instructions on how to circumvent copy protection devices. (Doesn't mean I am in agreement with this draconian approach, but it is not enough for the freedophile to simply say "I don't like it therefore the law does not apply to me).

Wikipedia are in an extremely immoral position. They have taken pictures where they clearly know that they have been obtained by an illegal method from a product in breach of its licensing conditions, yet they are quite happy to be the recipients.

The daft thing is that you can quite happily get images of the pictures in question from their web site. I think the fact that they are very high resolution images of quality would make a significant difference in court. This is not about setting information free, it is about stealing other people's work.

I shudder to think that this bunch of miscreants with no moral compass are seeking to take charge of our cultural heritage.

Assuming I'm right about them having come from the CD, I'm inclined to agree with you. Legalities aside, the moral element of copying material from a commercial CD differs from the moral element of copying images which have been released online.

[Malleus]

Assuming I'm right about them having come from the CD, I'm inclined to agree with you. Legalities aside, the moral element of copying material from a commercial CD differs from the moral element of copying images which have been released online.

I think the comment about watermark removal does need to be explained. If memory serves me correctly I think I've seen requests for help to remove watermarks on Dcoetzee's talk page.

On a personal note, I'm pissed off that I have to jump through hoops to get an anonymous photograph from a 1920's postcard onto Commons while this administrator is ripping off a commercial CD.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[taiwopanfob]

On a personal note, I'm pissed off that I have to jump through hoops to get an anonymous photograph from a 1920's postcard onto Commons while this administrator is ripping off a commercial CD.

Talk to Lar about it. It'll only take four minutes, scruples be damned.

[Supine]

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:

[Milton Roe]

Assuming I'm right about them having come from the CD, I'm inclined to agree with you. Legalities aside, the moral element of copying material from a commercial CD differs from the moral element of copying images which have been released online.

I think the comment about watermark removal does need to be explained. If memory serves me correctly I think I've seen requests for help to remove watermarks on Dcoetzee's talk page.

On a personal note, I'm pissed off that I have to jump through hoops to get an anonymous photograph from a 1920's postcard onto Commons while this administrator is ripping off a commercial CD.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?

More srsly, do you know the exact date of the postcard? Photos 1923 and before have a special copyright status, as you probably know. Basically, they are automatically public domaign.

[Peter Damian]

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.

Why bizarre? Terms of use are just terms of use. The request was to make an 'undertaking' to abide by a number of things, one of which was (g). The letter says "If, by 20 July 2009, you provide undertakings in writing in the manner described below, our client will refrain from taking any legal action against you. The undertakings that our client requires are undertakings to immediately: [... (g) ...]"

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Eva Destruction]

Assuming I'm right about them having come from the CD, I'm inclined to agree with you. Legalities aside, the moral element of copying material from a commercial CD differs from the moral element of copying images which have been released online.

I think the comment about watermark removal does need to be explained. If memory serves me correctly I think I've seen requests for help to remove watermarks on Dcoetzee's talk page.

On a personal note, I'm pissed off that I have to jump through hoops to get an anonymous photograph from a 1920's postcard onto Commons while this administrator is ripping off a commercial CD.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?

More srsly, do you know the exact date of the postcard? Photos 1923 and before have a special copyright status, as you probably know. Basically, they are automatically public domaign.

Malleus is in England; Commons always follows the law of the country in which the original was published (unlike en-wiki, which always follows Florida law), and England has strict life-of-the-creator-plus-70-years rules unless it's "an artistic work on permanent display to the public" (in which case it's automatically exempt altogether).

[taiwopanfob]

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.

Dcoetzee would login to the Commons, and using the power of his secret decoder ring, remove the file(s). He would then return to NPG and say "I did my best; talk to the WMF people for final resolution on this". Terms like "good faith" actually have a specific -- and entirely different -- meaning outside of the WikiWonderLand.

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.

I can say to you, supine, not to trespass on my property. True, this is completely unenforceable. However, a good lad you are, you agree anyways. Like, why not? But should I find you on my land some day, well, that's when the legal thumb screws can be deployed.

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.

I think even the WMF agrees they are being an obstruction. Aren't they even delighting in it?

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".

Legal service demands things like names and addresses. WikiAddresses just don't cut it in the real world. Yes, the Real World, where this letter came from and where this issue ultimately will be decided.

[Supine]

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.

Why bizarre? Terms of use are just terms of use. The request was to make an 'undertaking' to abide by a number of things, one of which was (g). The letter says "If, by 20 July 2009, you provide undertakings in writing in the manner described below, our client will refrain from taking any legal action against you. The undertakings that our client requires are undertakings to immediately: [... (g) ...]"

Because the letter reads:

Next Steps
It should be clear to you that our client has grounds to commence proceedings against you in respect of your numerous breaches of their legal rights. If our client were to sue you through the UK Courts our client would be entitled to damages, injunctions and the recovery of its legal costs. However, our client is very keen to avoid commencing proceedings against you if this can be avoided. Our client has already indicated, in writing, to the Wikimedia Foundation that provided that all of its images are removed from the website it will not take any further action. However, the Wikimedia Foundation has ignored this request which requires our client to seek its remedy directly from you.

If, by 20 July 2009, you provide undertakings in writing in the manner described below, our client will refrain from taking any legal action against you. The undertakings that our client requires are undertakings to immediately:...

It was a demand to undertake all steps that they require, where the failure to do so would cause further ('courts') action. It might be one thing to tell someone to "stop doing that unlawful action, or I will use the courts to enforce you to stop" (since courts are there to enforce, y'know, laws). It's quite another thing to demand somebody follow any particular terms of use that they place on their website or face litigation.

This post has been edited by Supine:

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

Your tour of duty in the land of no responsibility has clouded your understanding of enforceable. It does not mean "there is nothing you can to to stop me before I do it." It means "if you do so there will be consequences." In this case it means "if you do we will not refrain from bringing the suit described in this correspondence." It is certainly and readily enforceable. If yours is the kind of advice "Dcoetzee" is receiving he is in for a bad time. Has anyone other than myself (and me only here) even suggested to "Dcoetzee" that he ought to seek independent legal counsel?

[Supine]

I can say to you, supine, not to trespass on my property. True, this is completely unenforceable. However, a good lad you are, you agree anyways. Like, why not? But should I find you on my land some day, well, that's when the legal thumb screws can be deployed.

All true! There are laws relating to trespass on private land for which you have ownership. But if you have a website and try to use court action to impose sanctions on anybody who doesn't follow the 'any old rules you made up one day and placed on it', well, then (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif).

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.

I think even the WMF agrees they are being an obstruction. Aren't they even delighting in it?

Delighting or taking a principled stand? Tomahto-tomaeto? Who can say.

[Lar]

Has anyone other than myself (and me only here) even suggested to "Dcoetzee" that he ought to seek independent legal counsel?

Yes.

Other than that, no comment.

[Supine]

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.

Your tour of duty in the land of no responsibility has clouded your understanding of enforceable. It does not mean "there is nothing you can to to stop me before I do it." It means "if you do so there will be consequences." In this case it means "if you do we will not refrain from bringing the suit described in this correspondence." It is certainly and readily enforceable. If yours is the kind of advice "Dcoetzee" is receiving he is in for a bad time. Has anyone other than myself (and me only here) even suggested to "Dcoetzee" that he ought to seek independent legal counsel?

Nothing I said was intended as legal "advice". Of course anybody who receives a lawyer's letter advising they cease and desist something or face legal action should seek advice, be it a lawyer they seek out, a free legal advice centre, or what have you; in this case keeping the foundation legal heads apprised being a sensible action in any event.

All I was doing was identifying and pointing out some questionable content in the letter. A far cry from suggesting "if you have no formal legal training, but 'think' something looks like it has little sign of succeeding then hey just go on and ignore it, and don't ask anyone suitably qualified for advice". The page from which I quoted the letter stated at the top that he had consulted legal representation, a statement I did see when I first looked at it.

This post has been edited by Supine:

[taiwopanfob]

I can say to you, supine, not to trespass on my property. True, this is completely unenforceable. However, a good lad you are, you agree anyways. Like, why not? But should I find you on my land some day, well, that's when the legal thumb screws can be deployed.

All true! There are laws relating to trespass on private land for which you have ownership. But if you have a website and try to use court action to impose sanctions on anybody who doesn't follow the 'any old rules you made up one day and placed on it', well, then (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif).

Their server, their rules. If you don't like 'em, you are always free to leave. All the letter was asking is that Dcoetzee not break the rules anymore ... or else. Seems entirely reasonable to me, no different that I can ask you not to take a crap on my front lawn ... or else.

Delighting or taking a principled stand? Tomahto-tomaeto? Who can say.

It's pretty clear they are laughing at the NPG, and, now, people like Dcoetzee. "Suckazz!" Thoroughly disgraceful, especially for a charity.


This post has been edited by taiwopanfob:

[One]

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.

Are all contracts unenforceable because the parties aren't legislators? Pretty half-baked reasoning. It's a proposed settlement.

Assuming that their terms of use specify not circumventing anti-copying measures (which was apparently done), their terms of use are law. This was part of the DMCA, which is at 17 USC 1201.

[taiwopanfob]

Has anyone other than myself (and me only here) even suggested to "Dcoetzee" that he ought to seek independent legal counsel?

Yes.

What if his counsel strongly urges to abide by the demand letter, will WMF help Dcoetzee? Will you, Lar, be the one to re-uplink the images, so the WMF can take a "principled stand" instead of poor Dcoetzee being forced into that position -- as per your actions?

Other than that, no comment.

Taking the fifth, are ya? Well you should. Indeed, have you sought independent legal advice yet?


This post has been edited by taiwopanfob:

[Supine]

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.

Are all contracts unenforceable because the parties aren't legislators? Pretty half-baked reasoning. It's a proposed settlement.

Assuming that their terms of use specify not circumventing anti-copying measures (which was apparently done), their terms of use are law. This was part of the DMCA, which is at 17 USC 1201.

Were essential elements of a contract present and a binding agreement created? It begs the question.

If the terms of use include or echo statutory or common law provisions then they will be able to enforce (or set enforcement in motion) adherence, and seek remedies for failure to abide by those. Legal provisions (as opposed to mere random desires unsupported by legal provisions) stand irrespective of whether they mention them or not; likewise, it is not likely, say, a landlord can enforce terms in a tenant agreement that remove protective tenant rights granted by the law-making body, however much they might want to.

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

Your tour of duty in the land of no responsibility has clouded your understanding of enforceable. It does not mean "there is nothing you can to to stop me before I do it." It means "if you do so there will be consequences." In this case it means "if you do we will not refrain from bringing the suit described in this correspondence." It is certainly and readily enforceable. If yours is the kind of advice "Dcoetzee" is receiving he is in for a bad time. Has anyone other than myself (and me only here) even suggested to "Dcoetzee" that he ought to seek independent legal counsel?

Nothing I said was intended as legal "advice". Of course anybody who receives a lawyer's letter advising they cease and desist something or face legal action should seek advice, be it a lawyer they seek out, a free legal advice centre, or what have you; in this case keeping the foundation legal heads apprised being a sensible action in any event.

All I was doing was identifying and pointing out some questionable content in the letter. A far cry from suggesting "if you have no formal legal training, but 'think' something looks like it has little sign of succeeding then hey just go on and ignore it, and don't ask anyone suitably qualified for advice". The page from which I quoted the letter stated at the top that he had consulted legal representation, a statement I did see when I first looked at it.

No, you still misunderstand. If he accepts the offer from NPG they will be bound to forgo action. They (NPG) will forgo the action whether any wider agreement wth WMF is reached or not. The settlement agreement changes the legal position of both "Dcoetzee" and NPG. It is not bowing to pressure. He would be receiving significant and valuable consideration. You can't possibly think that crowd sourcing the letter will result in prudent advice. In fact if he had sought independent legal counsel the first thing he would be told would be to not post the letter on WP.

Of course to you the lawyers at Farrer & Co are fools who send "questionable" letters and the crowdsourcing results in prudent advice. "Dcoetzee" needs independent legal counsel, like yesterday.

[quantpole]

It's hilarious seeing the free speech heroes loudly decrying the NPG and getting out the pitchforks when by the looks of things it's actually a pretty serious legal issue for dcoetzee. I wonder what they'd be doing if it was them on the receiving end. This could have huge ramifications for the guy. As others have said, the first thing done should have been to delete all the image, and let WMF re-upload if they want this fight. It's not worth messing up an individuals life for, no matter how 'specious' some people may think the threat is.

[Supine]

Of course to you the lawyers at Farrer & Co are fools who send "questionable" letters and the crowdsourcing results in prudent advice. "Dcoetzee" needs independent legal counsel, like yesterday.

There is a sharp contrast between a "questionable letter" and a letter which may contain some "questionable points". According to what he said on the page "I am consulting legal representation" he has already sought legal advice, as well he should.

As for the matter of his publicly posting the letter onsite, GlassBeadGame, I agree.

This post has been edited by Supine:

[MZMcBride]

Of course to you the lawyers at Farrer & Co are fools who send "questionable" letters and the crowdsourcing results in prudent advice. "Dcoetzee" needs independent legal counsel, like yesterday.

Perhaps I'm simply thick, but I'm still not getting it. Dcoetzee is a U.S.-based contributor (I confirmed this myself by asking him directly). The National Portrait Gallery is UK-based. I don't see why on Earth Dcoetzee has anything to worry about. Can someone clarify for me? Is there any precedent for a U.S. court enforcing the ruling of a UK court?

[dtobias]

He might have problems if he gets a default judgment against him and ever wants to visit the UK, or perhaps even any EU country, or has any assets in those countries.

[Kato]

Wikipedios are doing what Wikipedios do best, they rewrite history to influence current proceedings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

[Nerd]

Wikipedios are doing what Wikipedios do best, they rewrite history to influence current proceedings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

Actually it looks like Uncle G is improving the article, nothing sinister or controversial here to speak of.

[Cedric]

It keeps getting better and better:

In a number of forums there is a claim being spread that the WMF has completely ignored the NPG and therefore somehow left Dcoetzee hung out to dry. This misunderstanding appears to stem from statements like "Wikimedia Foundation has ignored this request" and "Wikimedia Foundation has ignored our client’s attempts" in the letter. The NPG has, in fact, received responses to their complaints and they aren't claiming otherwise. What they are stating is that their complaints did not achieve a response that satisfied them. Might it be helpful if some comment to that effect were placed at the top?

The letter also alleges that the Wikimedia Foundation has ignored prior attempts to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion. To the best of my ability to tell this does not appear to be the case. Aggressive and legally uninformed without the slightest hint of compromise is the only way in which I can characterize the prior messages sent on about these images that I have access to. In fact, in 2006 when the NPG complained about Wikipedia using images of works in their collection an agreement was reached between the wikipedia volunteer handling the issue and the NPG to provide credit and a link back. This type of attribution has since been provided on images of works in the NPGs collection, but the NPG has apparently turned its back on this prior arrangement.

I'm generally concerned that by leaving the NPG letter here largely without comment we're letting them have the floor. Many people are uninformed on the matter and don't realize the enormous harm that would be caused were the NPG allowed to arbitrarily seize the copyright on works hundreds of years old, and they don't recognize that there are ways to fund museum work which are fair and proportional and don't involve robbing our descendants by privatizing antiquities. It isn't widely understood that NPG's legal theories are suspect even under UK law and that in the US their copyright assertions are, quite possibly, criminal. Nor are many people making the connection with the mechanical shoot-first take down policies of other user contributed content sites which are widely decried for removing material which is unquestionably permitted by law. --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(emphasis hilariously supplied).

See that, British people? The WMF is wresting your culture from the clutches of the evil copyright criminals at the NPG! Don't you feel grateful? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Kato]

Many people are uninformed on the matter and don't realize the enormous harm that would be caused were the NPG allowed to arbitrarily seize the copyright on works hundreds of years old, and they don't recognize that there are ways to fund museum work which are fair and proportional and don't involve robbing our descendants by privatizing antiquities. It isn't widely understood that NPG's legal theories are suspect even under UK law and that in the US their copyright assertions are, quite possibly, criminal.

Ridiculous.

This emphasises precisely why Wikipedios don't understand the bigger picture of what constitutes Private ownership and Public Ownership, or what constitutes Free. Let alone what those terms mean in the UK where a high profile war has been raging about keeping British Galleries free for years, as opposed to place like the Louvre which charge around 10 Euro.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...ree-453620.html

Steve Sinnott, General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers, reacted angrily to the idea of rolling back free admission and said that the effect on children in particular could be disastrous.

"Free access means that every child can benefit from the treasure chest contained within museums regardless of the depth of the parental pocket," he said.

"History, art, geography, so many subjects are enlivened by being able to go to a museum and see and touch the exhibitions. To reintroduce charges will restrict these opportunities and will make the learning of these subjects a less rich experience."

Tessa Jowell, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, denounced Mr Swire. She said: "This would be a seriously regrettable step if the Tories were to go down this road. It would be unpopular and would penalise people from all walks of life.

"Our national museums and galleries perform an enormously useful role for families across the United Kingdom and it's right that admission to them should not be limited simply to those who can pay. In cultural policy terms it's one of the most significant achievements we have made and one of which I am most proud."

But despite the government grants that have enabled museums to cut their entry fees many national museums are still finding it hard to make ends meet, particularly as their income has not been rising as fast as staff costs and inflation.

Protecting galleries and museums should be a high priority for everyone wishing to promote Free Access. And by that I mean real Free Access - not breaking into a gallery's website security and stealing a bunch of reproductions.

[GlassBeadGame]

He might have problems if he gets a default judgment against him and ever wants to visit the UK, or perhaps even any EU country, or has any assets in those countries.

If a money judgment is entered by a fair process with notice and jurisdiction by a non-US court and the time for appeals has passed the judgment can be enforced in most states via the local version of the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act.

I'm uncertain if any injunctions might be enforced or if so by what process.

Many people are uninformed on the matter and don't realize the enormous harm that would be caused were the NPG allowed to arbitrarily seize the copyright on works hundreds of years old, and they don't recognize that there are ways to fund museum work which are fair and proportional and don't involve robbing our descendants by privatizing antiquities. It isn't widely understood that NPG's legal theories are suspect even under UK law and that in the US their copyright assertions are, quite possibly, criminal.

Ridiculous.

Just to be clear, as I'm sure Kato knows, Cedric didn't make the quoted statement, Gmaxwell did.

[dogbiscuit]

It keeps getting better and better:

I'm generally concerned that by leaving the NPG letter here largely without comment we're letting them have the floor. Many people are uninformed on the matter and don't realize the enormous harm that would be caused were the NPG allowed to arbitrarily seize the copyright on works hundreds of years old, and they don't recognize that there are ways to fund museum work which are fair and proportional and don't involve robbing our descendants by privatizing antiquities. It isn't widely understood that NPG's legal theories are suspect even under UK law and that in the US their copyright assertions are, quite possibly, criminal. Nor are many people making the connection with the mechanical shoot-first take down policies of other user contributed content sites which are widely decried for removing material which is unquestionably permitted by law. --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(emphasis hilariously supplied).

See that, British people? The WMF is wresting your culture from the clutches of the evil copyright criminals at the NPG! Don't you feel grateful? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

It isn't widely understood that if the WMF pursue this line of action, the likes of NPG will simply not bother to make such products in the future, and there will be no high definition images to acquire in the future. Typical freedophile illogic.

It is really, really simple. It is not about copyright - that is just one element of a legal argument - it is about the NPG making a high quality resource available at a reasonable price (£20 for 10,000 hi-res images, plus the organisation of that information) and having an expectation that it will not be abused. They did not realise that the WMF was such a disreputable organisation that instead of having some concern for their reputation, they instead characterise a reputable organisation, the NPG, as fraudsters - which I would suggest is actionable defamation.

If WMF were an ethical organisation, they would have a rational discussion with the galleries, and I'd suggest that the NPG probably would be willing to provide or allow lower resolution images for free - nick them off the web site and I doubt they'd be too upset - they have not taken any steps to make them protected.

I think that this would play out in a very interesting way in the UK mainstream press. It is an issue that the public can understand - Americans stealing by hacking from UK public institutions being lauded as freedom fighting with the US citizens cowardly hiding behind their borders while British citizens of suspect mental capacity are sacrificed to the US due to the UK giving into American bullying on an asymmetrical extradition treaty essentially to save the embarrassment of the US Military IT department who know diddlely-squat about how to secure a computer. David Gerard could end up sounding very stupid as self-appointed I'm So Smug Wikipedia press officer.

[Kato]

It is really, really simple. It is not about copyright - that is just one element of a legal argument - it is about the NPG making a high quality resource available at a reasonable price (£20 for 10,000 hi-res images, plus the organisation of that information) and having an expectation that it will not be abused.

This is it. Galleries (including the NPG) sell posters of works, many them showing works past their copyright. That doesn't mean some kid can walk into the gallery shop and claim them for free. It certainly doesn't make the gallery owners "criminals who are robbing descendants by privatizing antiquities".

[Floydsvoid]

As you know, the images from our client’s website that you have copied were made available from our client’s website using “Zoomify” software. As you know, Zoomify is an application that is used to publish photographic images in such a way that an entire high resolution image is never made available to a user although high-resolution extracts or “tiles” are made available one-at-a-time. Our client used the Zoomify technology to protect our client’s copyright in the high resolution images.

Is it possible that "Dcoetzee" somehow combined a series of "detail" tiles together? Does NPG still permit the use "Zoomify" or perhaps they disabled this to prevent further intrusions? If so "free culture" has already lessened the amount of information available to "want to to be free."

1.12 MB strikes me as very large, even for a high resolution image, which would fit with an assembled image explanation.

Oh, I missed the part about zoomify. I hate reading legalese. Seems this software can zoom in and out of an image much like google maps.

So, yeah, it looks like Dcoetzee had to patch together detailed images to come up with one big image. For a 2400x2895 jpg, 1.12M doesn't seem unreasonable.

I haven't found any images on NPG that I can zoomify yet but I have found plenty of disclaimers. For example, here, here and here [pdf].

I guess there's a distinction between free as in libre and free as in beer.

If I was Dcoetzee I wouldn't plan on visiting the UK any time soon.

This post has been edited by Floydsvoid:

[taiwopanfob]

Gmaxwell sayeth:

In a number of forums there is a claim being spread that the WMF has completely ignored the NPG and therefore somehow left Dcoetzee hung out to dry. This misunderstanding appears to stem from statements like "Wikimedia Foundation has ignored this request" and "Wikimedia Foundation has ignored our client’s attempts" in the letter. [...]

Well, no: Dcoetzee is being hung out to dry because Gmaxwell, Lar, and the rest of the "T&P" crowd, have denied him the ability to make a crucial decision in his own interests and future.

One simple, and honorable, adjustment and the entire "hung out to dry" argument disappears. Completely! Is it not the supremely ironic that Lar can choose to fix his mistake and move on, but Dcoetzee can not?

Maybe it's time for some "Free Dcoetzee" t-shirts?

This post has been edited by taiwopanfob:

[One]

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.

Are all contracts unenforceable because the parties aren't legislators? Pretty half-baked reasoning. It's a proposed settlement.

Assuming that their terms of use specify not circumventing anti-copying measures (which was apparently done), their terms of use are law. This was part of the DMCA, which is at 17 USC 1201.

Were essential elements of a contract present and a binding agreement created? It begs the question.

If the terms of use include or echo statutory or common law provisions then they will be able to enforce (or set enforcement in motion) adherence, and seek remedies for failure to abide by those. Legal provisions (as opposed to mere random desires unsupported by legal provisions) stand irrespective of whether they mention them or not; likewise, it is not likely, say, a landlord can enforce terms in a tenant agreement that remove protective tenant rights granted by the law-making body, however much they might want to.

No, you're not getting it. They bind themselves to not pursue a case in exchange for X, Y, and Z. The terms can be anything they want, and if both parties agree to it, the settlement may be enforced against any party who breeches it.

[tarantino]

Oh, I missed the part about zoomify. I hate reading legalese. Seems this software can zoom in and out of an image much like google maps.

So, yeah, it looks like Dcoetzee had to patch together detailed images to come up with one big image. For a 2400x2895 jpg, 1.12M doesn't seem unreasonable.

I haven't found any images on NPG that I can zoomify yet but I have found plenty of disclaimers. For example, here, here and here [pdf].

I guess there's a distinction between free as in libre and free as in beer.

If I was Dcoetzee I wouldn't plan on visiting the UK any time soon.

The Wikipedia Signpost is preparing an article on this. Following one of the links in the article leads to a discussion on where to find the Python script used to download and stitch Zoomified images together and how to use it. Raul654 seems quite gleeful about his new found ability to circumvent copy protection schemes on a number of websites.

[TungstenCarbide]

It is really, really simple. It is not about copyright - that is just one element of a legal argument - it is about the NPG making a high quality resource available at a reasonable price (£20 for 10,000 hi-res images, plus the organisation of that information) and having an expectation that it will not be abused.

This is it. Galleries (including the NPG) sell posters of works, many them showing works past their copyright. That doesn't mean some kid can walk into the gallery shop and claim them for free. It certainly doesn't make the gallery owners "criminals who are robbing descendants by privatizing antiquities".

Let's review; "copy" ... "rights" ... are things which expire after a time.

The NPG is using thin technicalities to engineer new copyrights, for themselves, in everything but name, on paintings who's copyrights have long since expired. I'm going to take a wild guess here that the NPG, that fine selfless organization serving the public, doesn't allow the public to use cameras in their gallery. amiright?

[Giano]

Of course to you the lawyers at Farrer & Co are fools who send "questionable" letters and the crowdsourcing results in prudent advice. "Dcoetzee" needs independent legal counsel, like yesterday.

Perhaps I'm simply thick, but I'm still not getting it. Dcoetzee is a U.S.-based contributor (I confirmed this myself by asking him directly). The National Portrait Gallery is UK-based. I don't see why on Earth Dcoetzee has anything to worry about. Can someone clarify for me? Is there any precedent for a U.S. court enforcing the ruling of a UK court?

Britain and the USA have an agreement to hand over each others' citizens to answer legal proceeedings. This is under the 1995 "Treaty between the Government of the USA the Government of the UK on mutual legal assistance on Criminal Matters" in practice, while Britain surrenders it citizens without fuss, the USA makes it more complicated, but in answer to your question theoretically and legally, yes there is a precedent for a U.S. court enforcing the ruling of a UK court.

One could argue that this is a civil matter and not criminal, however, others would argue it was a theft of copyright, so was criminal. Whatever, this matter has serious implications, especially for those in the UK, and needs to be clarified.

Giano

[GlassBeadGame]

Of course to you the lawyers at Farrer & Co are fools who send "questionable" letters and the crowdsourcing results in prudent advice. "Dcoetzee" needs independent legal counsel, like yesterday.

Perhaps I'm simply thick, but I'm still not getting it. Dcoetzee is a U.S.-based contributor (I confirmed this myself by asking him directly). The National Portrait Gallery is UK-based. I don't see why on Earth Dcoetzee has anything to worry about. Can someone clarify for me? Is there any precedent for a U.S. court enforcing the ruling of a UK court?

Britain and the USA have an agreement to hand over each others' citizens to answer legal proceeedings. This is under the 1995 "Treaty between the Government of the USA the Government of the UK on mutual legal assistance on Criminal Matters" in practice, while Britain surrenders it citizens without fuss, the USA makes it more complicated, but in answer to your question theoretically and legally, yes there is a precedent for a U.S. court enforcing the ruling of a UK court.

One could argue that this is a civil matter and not criminal, however, others would argue it was a theft of copyright, so was criminal. Whatever, this matter has serious implications, especially for those in the UK, and needs to be clarified.

Giano

Jeez, this is a civil matter. US law does have some provision for criminal sanctions (pop in movie CD and they will tell you all about it right before the show starts) along with civil penalties. I don't know if UK does also, very likely so, but you know this is civil because Farrer & Co is indicating they, rather than prosecuting authorities, would bring suit. Also negotiating a "settlement" of a criminal case outside the court system is ill advised as it raises questions of extortion. So this is a civil matter, at least at this point.

No one is going to be "handed over." He will be served and may choose to answer or not. If he answers he may defend. If he fails to answer or does not prevail a judgment (for money and perhaps injunctive relief) will be awarded in the UK. That judgment may then be enforced pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Money Judgment Act as I described above. He doesn't to need to hide in his basement wating for The Man. He does need his own lawyer. I hope he doesn't listen to any of the things posted (including my own) and gets a lawyer to represent his own interests. Not WMF's interests. Not "the community's" interests. Not free culture's interests. His own interests.

[dtobias]

There are cases where a U.S. court has refused to enforce a foreign judgement because they judge it to be illegal or unconstitutional under U.S. law, such as cases where First Amendment rights are implicated. But, yes, he needs a real lawyer to advise him, not a bunch of message-board kooks.

[dogbiscuit]

Jeez, this is a civil matter. No one is going to be "handed over." He will be served and may choose to answer or not. If he answers he may defend. If he fails to answer or does not prevail a judgment (for money and perhaps injunctive relief) will be awarded in the UK. That judgment may then be enforced pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Money Judgment Act as I described above. He doesn't to need to hide in his basement wating for The Man. He does need his own lawyer. I hope he doesn't listen to any of the things posted (including my own) and gets a lawyer to represent his own interests. Not WMF's interests. Not "the community's" interests. Not free culture's interests. His own interests.

If it was determined that it was a case of hacking copy protection, then it is criminal.

However, generally speaking,the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) would need to be involved - you cannot, as a private individual, start criminal proceedings, typically you start off going to the police, they then investigate and then pass on their findings to the CPS, who will consider whether it is worth pursuing - the involvement of a foreign citizen would be a factor and I somehow doubt that they would be interested in pursuing it unless there was a serious consideration that there were national interests to defend.

I also seriously doubt that a reputable organisation such as the NPG would be interested in such a path, especially against a naive individual. However, I can imagine that in the larger scheme of things, there is a test case in the offing here that many public institutions in the UK would be interested in pursuing due to the ramifications for the abuse of these organisations' money raising sidelines.

[GlassBeadGame]

There are cases where a U.S. court has refused to enforce a foreign judgement because they judge it to be illegal or unconstitutional under U.S. law, such as cases where First Amendment rights are implicated. But, yes, he needs a real lawyer to advise him, not a bunch of message-board kooks.

That is correct and applies to defamation matters among others because of first amendment concerns. This is not a question of Constitutional or even important policy differences. It merely a question of where to draw the line in what amounts to an "act of creation" deserving of copyright protection. The fact the US courts might reach a different result is not sufficient reason to not enforce the judgment providing there is notice, a fair process and jurisdiction over the person and subject matter. The Farrer & Co letter reads like a check list of each of these requirements.

[Daxx]

One could argue that this is a civil matter and not criminal, however, others would argue it was a theft of copyright, so was criminal. Whatever, this matter has serious implications, especially for those in the UK, and needs to be clarified.

Giano

It's worth pointing out that "theft", where "piracy" of intellectual property is concerned is a misnomer. It's not actually theft unless something has been physically removed from the possession of the owner (And, for that matter, it's not actually "piracy" unless the high seas are involved or something).

What has occurred here is a case of copyright infringement, which is almost certainly a civil matter. There might be other criminal issues concerning circumvention of the protection software, but AFAIK they wouldn't be considered theft (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Words like theft are evocative, but confusing - one of the irritating tactics of the RIAA, MPAA etc. is to try to conflate the two.

Of course, now I'm wondering how someone could actually steal a copyright.

IANAL, posting on interwebs, etc.

PS. This topic always reminds me of this video.

This post has been edited by Daxx:

[Apathetic]

Don't think I would've uploaded 'em in the first place, but I probably would've mass-deleted them as soon as I received the email - to at least comply in spirit with the demand as to my ability, whether the files actually got permanently deleted or not.

Wouldn't spend my own money on a lawyer for this.

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[Obesity]

Dcoetzee rhymes with goatse.

Coincidence??? YOU DECIDE.

[Cedric]

Just in case any of you thought that I had already plumbed the depths of Gregory Maxwell's stupidity on this issue, check this out:

Consider the incentive system that you create when you combine a
copyright system which is effectively perpetual through retroactive
extensions plus the ability to copyright any work in the public domain
by making a slavish reproduction:

New exciting viable business plans emerge, such as:

1) Obtain classic works of art and slavishly digitize them.
2) Destroy the works of art
3) Perpetual profit!

The next day, Skulldancer made a very similar comment to Tim Worstall's piece for the Examiner.com. Is this the official line of the WMF now? It certainly seems to fit.

STEP 1: Do injury to all perceived enemies of "free culture";
STEP 2: Add insult to injury by ascribing patently ridiculous and outrageous motives to the enemy;
STEP 3: ??? [wiki magic involved here, folks!]
STEP 4: FREE CULTURE!

[GlassBeadGame]

Don't think I would've uploaded 'em in the first place, but I probably would've mass-deleted them as soon as I received the email - to at least comply in spirit with the demand as to my ability, whether the files actually got permanently deleted or not.

Wouldn't spend my own money on a lawyer for this.

Although merely deleting the images might not meet the requirements set out in the Farrer & Co. letter it might well have been sufficient. At least the images would not be available to the public and would not have any serious economic impact on the gallery. NPG could then take action against any fool admin that was later willing to undelete the images. Farrer & Co seemed reasonable and willing to talk. Like you say it would have shown a spirit to comply.

[Apathetic]

Don't think I would've uploaded 'em in the first place, but I probably would've mass-deleted them as soon as I received the email - to at least comply in spirit with the demand as to my ability, whether the files actually got permanently deleted or not.

Wouldn't spend my own money on a lawyer for this.

Although merely deleting the images might not meet the requirements set out in the Farrer & Co. letter it might well have been sufficient. At least the images would not be available to the public and would not have any serious economic impact on the gallery. NPG could then take action against any fool admin that was later willing to undelete the images. Farrer & Co seemed reasonable and willing to talk. Like you say it would have shown a spirit to comply.

Indeed.

Didn't I read earlier somewhere that NPG was willing to provide lower-resolution versions of these images to WMF free of charge? Seems like taking up that offer in good faith might have been a good idea as well.

[dtobias]

Of course, now I'm wondering how someone could actually steal a copyright.

Break into their home or office and swipe the copyright registration certificate?

[thekohser]

I'm going to take a wild guess here that the NPG, that fine selfless organization serving the public, doesn't allow the public to use cameras in their gallery. amiright?

You am right.

I guess the "Wikipedia Loves Art" brigade won't be visiting there anytime soon.


I also find it interesting that there are obvious typographical/spelling errors on the NPG's page on how to legally license the high-resolution content they have for lease.

"If you confirm you order in writing"

"we will fulfil your order"

[Kato]

"we will fulfil your order"

That's the correct spelling.

[thekohser]

"we will fulfil your order"

That's the correct spelling.

Yeah, sure... for people who would "fulfil you order".

I just dislike the "fil" persuasion, since it isn't etymologically linked to the verb "fill" or the Old English "fyllan", which have always been spelled with two L's. Why would anyone in their right mind think that dropping that one letter "l" over time would help cognition?

[Milton Roe]

I'm going to take a wild guess here that the NPG, that fine selfless organization serving the public, doesn't allow the public to use cameras in their gallery. amiright?

You am right.

I guess the "Wikipedia Loves Art" brigade won't be visiting there anytime soon.


I also find it interesting that there are obvious typographical/spelling errors on the NPG's page on how to legally license the high-resolution content they have for lease.

"If you confirm you order in writing"

"we will fulfil your order"

You may not be aware that this is typical Chinese-English. That use of the world fulfill to mean "fill" is a giveaway. It's sort of the way you look at: "I also would be most pleased to see how it looks like and what it is called as..." and be pretty sure it was written by an East Indian.

[TungstenCarbide]

Funniest news article title so far - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/13/wikimedia_npg/

[Cedric]

Didn't I read earlier somewhere that NPG was willing to provide lower-resolution versions of these images to WMF free of charge? Seems like taking up that offer in good faith might have been a good idea as well.

Yes and yes. I believe that what you are referring to is this bit of the "Wikipedia Signpost" article from earlier this morning:

Maxwell also noted that "a copyright complaint by the NPG in 2006 where the initial response from our side was 'What we're doing is permitted by US law' was satisfactorily resolved by providing attribution and back-links on the image page." Matthew Bailey, the Assistant Picture Library Manager for the NPG, stated at the time that the NPG would "allow Wikipedia to use the images available on our site (www.npg.org.uk), providing there is a direct link from the image displayed on Wikipedia to the page it appears on in the NPG website."[6]

In other words, free use of pictures of about the quality that you have on this page from the NPG site.

I thoroughly agree that this should have been a totally satisfactory arrangement of benefit to both websites. Wikipedia would have had the use of the pictures to illustrate articles, and the NPG would have had credit and a direct link for those readers who wanted more information on the portrait; a win-win situation.

(IMG:http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/1087/johnbelushi.jpg) "But NOOOOoooo! THAT just wasn't GOOD ENOUGH for the WMF!"

Think about this: why the hell does an online encyclopedia need 1.0MB+ pics anyway? They are WAY to large to put on a browser page interspersed with text. 200KB or less (most often significantly less) is quite sufficient. Unless you are deluded enough to fancy yourself a "photograph restorer" just because you know how to alter a digital image in Photoshop (e.g., Durova), I can see no reason to desire such ultra hi-res images.

The more I think about this whole kerfuffle, the more convinced I become that it really has nothing to do with "free culture" at all. It's really about a tiny group of self-appointed gatekeepers attempting to force professional curators to jump through a bunch of hoops, while all the while feeling very superior to those curators.

Fucking assholes! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Funniest news article title so far - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/13/wikimedia_npg/

Good article, but it is imperative that NPG gets some press attention outside the techie media soon. If the libertarian free culture people write dozens of pieces that will be what will be picked up and eaten up by progressively bigger media fish until the narrative is set.

[Moulton]

Good article, but it is imperative that NPG gets some press attention outside the techie media soon.

This article is quite well-written.

[Supine]

Originally posted by One Today, 4:42am
No, you're not getting it. They bind themselves to not pursue a case in exchange for X, Y, and Z. The terms can be anything they want, and if both parties agree to it, the settlement may be enforced against any party who breeches it.

Oh you're referring to the settlement terms binding them from pursuing further action as long as it's kept to. I agree with what you said then yes.

[Supine]

A Foundation-L mailing list post mentions the April 2009 complaint and claims it was made from a US commercial partner of the NPG. It makes the suggestion that the NPG then made the communication to the user under UK law because the US law allowed for using the NPG images.

[dtobias]

Funniest news article title so far - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/13/wikimedia_npg/

Good article, but it is imperative that NPG gets some press attention outside the techie media soon. If the libertarian free culture people write dozens of pieces that will be what will be picked up and eaten up by progressively bigger media fish until the narrative is set.

Geeks Rule!!!!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Libertarian free-culture computer geeks like me don't have nearly the amount of money or mainstream political clout as many other interest groups, but what we lack there we often make up in ability to cleverly frame issues in our favor! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[dcoetzee]

Hi all, I took a look over the thread, and although I'm not making a public statement on my position at this time, I did want to make a small correction: these images were in fact obtained from the NPG website, not their CD of digital works, which I don't own and most likely does not contain high-resolution images at all. NPG removed the high-resolution images from their website back in April.
--
Derrick Coetzee
User:Dcoetzee, English Wikipedia administrator

[Moulton]

Per your signature, are you still an Administrator on the English Wikipedia?

If not, what is your status?

[Apathetic]

Per your signature, are you still an Administrator on the English Wikipedia?

If not, what is your status?

s/he still has adminship rights at en.wiki, and presumably will regain commons administrator rights when/if this whole thing blows over.

[taiwopanfob]

s/he still has adminship rights at en.wiki, and presumably will regain commons administrator rights when/if this whole thing blows over.

Dcoetzee needs the bit today, not after he has been mauled by NPG's lawyers. In fact, if things turn out badly for dcoetzee, the return of his admin rights will likely seem like the final insult ("thanks for nothing ...")

[Cedric]

Hi all, I took a look over the thread, and although I'm not making a public statement on my position at this time, I did want to make a small correction: these images were in fact obtained from the NPG website, not their CD of digital works, which I don't own and most likely does not contain high-resolution images at all. NPG removed the high-resolution images from their website back in April.
--
Derrick Coetzee
User:Dcoetzee, English Wikipedia administrator

Thanks for that clarification. I believe that you also clarified elsewhere that you are not, nor ever have been, a mediawiki developer, as has been stated on some other websites. I have also seen erroneous statements of law pertaining to this case elsewhere.

I think we can all agree that this case is complicated enough without having to go chasing at shadows.

[GlassBeadGame]

Hi all, I took a look over the thread, and although I'm not making a public statement on my position at this time, I did want to make a small correction: these images were in fact obtained from the NPG website, not their CD of digital works, which I don't own and most likely does not contain high-resolution images at all. NPG removed the high-resolution images from their website back in April.
--
Derrick Coetzee
User:Dcoetzee, English Wikipedia administrator

You really should get legal counsel before you even "make a small correction."

[Adambro]

Hopefully this can get resolved without legal action going ahead. I'm inclined to disagree with the NPG on this though, regardless of how much work was involved in producing these images of these art works, they are still merely reproductions of public domain of art.

[Somey]

...these images were in fact obtained from the NPG website, not their CD of digital works, which I don't own and most likely does not contain high-resolution images at all. NPG removed the high-resolution images from their website back in April.

I'm just catching up on this, really, but does anyone know if the NPG was more concerned/upset about the high resolution versions (still) being available via WP, or was it the failure of WP to include links to the NPG site from actual article pages?

The example used by the NPG's Assistant Picture Library Manager, Matthew Bailey, in the e-mail reproduced on this page was Mary Wollstonecraft (T-H-L-K-D), where (as you can see) there's no mention of the NPG beneath that image. The NPG is, however, mentioned (but not linked to directly) elsewhere on that page, in the caption beneath the image of William Northcote, with no apparent reason for the inconsistency other than the fact that Wikipedia tends to be inconsistent about such things.

I would think that if I was the National Portrait Gallery, I would at least want links directly to my (NPG's) website from somewhere on the article pages if people on WP insisted on using digital images that I had contracted to be created. If I had that, I probably wouldn't mind the high resolutions. (Having the links not be tagged as "nofollow" would be nice too, of course.) The idea that's it's sufficient to have such links only on the "image pages" is, to say the least, rather cheeky on WP's part.

[GlassBeadGame]

Funniest news article title so far - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/13/wikimedia_npg/

Good article, but it is imperative that NPG gets some press attention outside the techie media soon. If the libertarian free culture people write dozens of pieces that will be what will be picked up and eaten up by progressively bigger media fish until the narrative is set.

Geeks Rule!!!!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Libertarian free-culture computer geeks like me don't have nearly the amount of money or mainstream political clout as many other interest groups, but what we lack there we often make up in ability to cleverly frame issues in our favor! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

You're completely entitled your little dance about this. I have come to see this a major asset on the side of Wikipedia in any effort to hold them accountable. Anyone going up against WP needs to understand that the techie press will frame issues in WP's favor and then it will become set as the story as it becomes the basis for wider coverage. Press relations need to addressed seriously and most of all early by groups in conflict with WP.

The discussion on Commons has spawned this list of coverage which goes down to the level vanity blogs and forums like "hackers news" that has a thread on the topic. It is a pretty good resource for anyone following the progress of the coverage and yes, it includes WR.

[Floydsvoid]

I'm inclined to disagree with the NPG on this though, regardless of how much work was involved in producing these images of these art works, they are still merely reproductions of public domain of art.

I'm inclined to agree with you for art owned by a government entity. Unfortunately it seems that English law does not agree with that sentiment, and there we are.

Let's try a thought experiment (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Suppose I, as a private collector, own a van Gogh. I, even as a US citizen, would expect that I could capitalize on my painting by making, say, posters available. But I ask you to pay a price (reasonable or unreasonable) and sign a contract saying you will not make a quality facsimile of the poster. You agree, send me the money and signed contract, and I send you the poster.

Days go by and I find out (from friends of course) that you are advertising the poster for sale in Hustler magazine. We go to court.

I show Judge Wapner the contract, and he would say we had a meeting of the minds, and you would have to pay up.

Loosen the constraints of the argument above and at what point am I (the NPG) wrong?

[Kato]

In light of this business, the National Portrait Gallery have taken their high resolution pictures off their website, I gather.

[GlassBeadGame]

In light of this business, the National Portrait Gallery have taken their high resolution pictures off their website, I gather.

Correct. That happened in April according to Mr. Coetzee. But look at this (completely random) example. How could this "low res" image not be suitable for any encyclopedic use?

[Milton Roe]

The example used by the NPG's Assistant Picture Library Manager, Matthew Bailey, in the e-mail reproduced on this page was Mary Wollstonecraft (T-H-L-K-D), where (as you can see) there's no mention of the NPG beneath that image. The NPG is, however, mentioned (but not linked to directly) elsewhere on that page, in the caption beneath the image of William Northcote, with no apparent reason for the inconsistency other than the fact that Wikipedia tends to be inconsistent about such things.

BTW, that's not "William Northcote," (no such person) but rather James Northcote's portrait of William Godwin,* Mary Wollstonecraft's husband. Of course they are the parents of Mary Shelley, wife of Percy and creator of Frankie.

But yes, the attributions aren't consistant.

Milton

*Now, for the odd: Although this was Godwin's favorite portrait of himself, it is only to be found in WP in the bio of his wife! The bio of Godwin himself has only a much older and uglier one. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Godwin is one of the original proponents of the idea of an attempt at immortality through Earthly vehicles. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif) An idea pushed to horrific conclusions by his daughter, but still not without appeal. But still the irony. Sic transit gloria mundi super Wikipediam.

[Malleus]

Per your signature, are you still an Administrator on the English Wikipedia?

If not, what is your status?

What Moulton's trying to say is this: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a wikipedia adminstrator." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[dogbiscuit]

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)

[Gandoman]

One thing that has previously been mentioned over and over on WR is speculation that in the event of a legal dispute, the WMF would gladly throw individual contributors under the bus in order to avoid liability for themselves. We can now see that that speculation was right: this is precisely what is being done with Dcoetzee.

The "conflict of interest" mentioned as a reason for Dcoetzee's desysopping is obviously to be interpreted as a conflict between his own interests (delete the images in order to avoid legal hassle) and the interests of the WMF (prevent him from deleting the images, so that they are preserved with a record of him being the uploader, thereby making him the recipient of legal proceedings). Because if Dcoetzee was allowed to delete the images, any admin undeleting them might actually put himself into a position of liability. And if that admin is an official representative of the WMF.....

[thekohser]

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.

The free culture geeks, though, would have their ears smoking and their heads spinning when they read this line from the NPG's polite and thoughtful letter:

It would also be essential that the image was not "offered" free-of-charge to anyone wishing to use it (under a GNUDFL, Copyleft or similar licence), and that anyone wanting a copy be directed to the NPG website.

ZOMG! They won't allow our hare-brained license onto their work, so that people can mix their images with our library of ejaculation sequences! We must be able to depict a penis splooging on Mary Wollstonecraft! The horrors of limiting mah rights!

The "conflict of interest" mentioned as a reason for Dcoetzee's desysopping ...

Link to this "mention", please? Dcoetzee hasn't been desysopped, has he?

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Gandoman]

Link to this "mention", please? Dcoetzee hasn't been desysopped, has he?

As posted earlier in this thread, Dcoetzee was desysopped on Commons following a request by Gmaxwell, citing a "conflict between your interests and those of the Wikimedia Foundation", see here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...etzee_adminship

[Giano]

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.

Giano

This post has been edited by Giano:

[Mathsci]

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.

[taiwopanfob]

Think about this: why the hell does an online encyclopedia need 1.0MB+ pics anyway?

Well, the Commons isn't targeted specifically at the encyclopedia -- it's supposed to be a more generic compilation of free stuff. High-resolution imagery does have uses for full-page stuff like magazine or book covers, exhibit panels in museums, and other purposes.

But I have another question: exactly why can't anyone who uploads an image unilaterally delete it? If the image is a piece of crap that no one will miss, then who cares? If, however, it was an excellent work worthy of admiration by future generations, and licensing terms permit, then someone probably would have cached it on their own, and they can re-upload it.

[Cedric]

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)

[GlassBeadGame]

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)

Wonderful. The article has its share of inaccuracies (WMF only has a PO Box in SF, makes it appear that action is underway not merely anticipated) but even the errors are encouraging. They are their own mistakes, not regurgitation of the techie press. Obviously NPG has the ear or two of people in the MSM.

It is one of the Gallery's primary purposes to make as much of the Collection available as possible for the public to view.

Digitisation involves huge costs including research, cataloguing, conservation and highly-skilled photography.

"Internet giant," "US based," "willing to enter into a dialogue with Wikipedia," "Wikipedia has not responded to our requests to discuss the issue" and best of all "self-described 'libertartian' Jimmy Wales". Got to love them.

[Apathetic]

But I have another question: exactly why can't anyone who uploads an image unilaterally delete it? If the image is a piece of crap that no one will miss, then who cares? If, however, it was an excellent work worthy of admiration by future generations, and licensing terms permit, then someone probably would have cached it on their own, and they can re-upload it.

Well, properly licensed submissions are irrevocable.

Probably to stop people from leaving in a huff and deleting everything they contributed when they 'retire'.

[taiwopanfob]

Well, properly licensed submissions are irrevocable.

Probably to stop people from leaving in a huff and deleting everything they contributed when they 'retire'.

Again, what is the problem with that? If everything they added was crap, then they have arguably done the server a favor. Items of value will be cached by others, and can be re-uploaded as per the "irrevocable" license.

This would have other useful effects. Suppose someone parked a truck-bomb beside the WMF server farm. (Or if the WMF burned to the ground. Or one of the developers with root access went insane.) Right now, probably everything would be lost. However, in an environment where the content was less certain, it would encourage other participants to be much more active in discovering useful content and caching it.

[Moulton]

The NPG spokesman added: "We haven't actually been able to track down anyone responsible for handling these kind of disputes."

And therein lies the core dysfunctionality of Wikipedia.

The project lacks a responsible authority for addressing and resolving content disputes.

[Apathetic]

Well, properly licensed submissions are irrevocable.

Probably to stop people from leaving in a huff and deleting everything they contributed when they 'retire'.

Again, what is the problem with that? If everything they added was crap, then they have arguably done the server a favor. Items of value will be cached by others, and can be re-uploaded as per the "irrevocable" license.

Someone who contributed a lot of useful content might have their images spread across many articles. Giving them the ability to pull the rug out wouldn't be helpful and your belief that someone would have cached them and re-upload them is wrongheaded at best.

[taiwopanfob]

Someone who contributed a lot of useful content might have their images spread across many articles. Giving them the ability to pull the rug out wouldn't be helpful and your belief that someone would have cached them and re-upload them is wrongheaded at best.

The Commons is not an encyclopedia. Presumably the encyclopedia will cache the content it finds useful and valuable, and will ignore the rest. This is no different than any other user of Commons.

So when you manage to piss off someone at Commons sufficiently that they no longer want you hosting their material, well, the encyclopedia or any other user of that material can (if it chooses) re-upload the content. The license permits this, the encyclopedia (or whoever used the material in the first place) can replace it.

Of course, if no one was using the material, then no one is going to care, will they?

This post has been edited by taiwopanfob:

[Random832]

[...]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.

What it says to me is that they are legally entitled to press a case. It doesn't really say anything to me on whether the law in question is morally right, and it's not clear why it does so for you (you are of course entitled to your own opinion, but what you quoted alone isn't really a basis for a moral judgement)

[Kato]

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.

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")

[thekohser]

Link to this "mention", please? Dcoetzee hasn't been desysopped, has he?

As posted earlier in this thread, Dcoetzee was desysopped on Commons following a request by Gmaxwell, citing a "conflict between your interests and those of the Wikimedia Foundation", see here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...etzee_adminship

Ah, yes. Well, being thrown under the bus is one thing. But it's really magical when the victim willingly lays down in front of the bus and thanks the guy who shoved him.

The Hive, personified.

[Kato]

[...]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.

What it says to me is that they are legally entitled to press a case. It doesn't really say anything to me on whether the law in question is morally right, and it's not clear why it does so for you (you are of course entitled to your own opinion, but what you quoted alone isn't really a basis for a moral judgement)

The bit I quoted (or bolded) was this

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

This says that we (who fund the NPG) are morally deserving of some protection and / or compensation if a kid in the US breaks into the website and takes the pictures without prior agreement, and the WMF refuses to discuss the matter.

[Random832]

It takes time and money to produce quality reproductions of artworks.

Requiring time and money should not be sufficient for copyright.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[thekohser]

The article has its share of inaccuracies (WMF only has a PO Box in SF...)

Consider that error addressed. I just left a comment, revealing the "secret" location at 39 Stillman Street.

[No one of consequence]

In light of this business, the National Portrait Gallery have taken their high resolution pictures off their website, I gather.

Correct. That happened in April according to Mr. Coetzee. But look at this (completely random) example. How could this "low res" image not be suitable for any encyclopedic use?

That is a fair question. Just because editors in the US can (we think) post super-high res versions doesn't necessarily mean we should.

[Nerd]

In light of this business, the National Portrait Gallery have taken their high resolution pictures off their website, I gather.

Correct. That happened in April according to Mr. Coetzee. But look at this (completely random) example. How could this "low res" image not be suitable for any encyclopedic use?

It's fine for encyclopedic use, but Commons is not just for Wikipedia purposes. It's a depository of "free" images, so if a better quality image is available it should be used.

[taiwopanfob]

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.

Ideal outcome: PD everything, they welcome a team of our photographers in.

I have this vision of an army of pimply teenagers, brandishing notebook computers with webcams, cellphone cams, point-and-shoot CyberShots, and other pieces of techno-trash, running around willy-nilly.

Back to reality:

http://www.phaseone.com/

Maybe Jimbo will cut a check; about one of his speaking engagement fees should do it.

That's only the camera though. You'll need the experienced photographer to operate it. And the first thing he'll do is laugh when told that not only he won't be paid, but his work is (supposedly) unprotected -- not even by a CC or GFDL license.

[dogbiscuit]

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.

[Milton Roe]

ZOMG! They won't allow our hare-brained license onto their work, so that people can mix their images with our library of ejaculation sequences! We must be able to depict a penis splooging on Mary Wollstonecraft!

Or you could just photoshop her into a bunny costume.

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/GloriaSteinum.jpg)

[taiwopanfob]

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?

I'm going to guess the Wikipediots would say that the rigid and slavish reproduction of sheet music involves 'creative' input, and is thus subject to copyright. (As opposed to the rigid, and purely deterministic Photographic Algorithm).

Or, if they wish to be consistent, they will insist there is no copyright and that they be allowed to bring in "teams" of (cough) "audio engineers" to record the concert. Let's see, MP3 lecture recorders, cellphones held up high ...

[Eva Destruction]

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:

[Milton Roe]

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.

Which is one reason why photography is outlawed at many galleries. Of course the flash harms the pictures, but sometimes even NON flash photography is not permitted.

Of course, cameras shrinking as they are, if you dont mind low-res, this is becoming more and more unenforceable. You'd have to run everybody through a metal detector like they do to keep cellphone cameras out of courtrooms, here in California.

[Eva Destruction]

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.

Which is one reason why photography is outlawed at many galleries. Of course the flash harms the pictures, but sometimes even NON flash photography is not permitted.

Of course, cameras shrinking as they are, if you dont mind low-res, this is becoming more and more unenforceable. You'd have to run everybody through a metal detector like they do to keep cellphone cameras out of courtrooms, here in California.

Don't know about the NPG, but a lot of museums here do exactly that.

(One of the main reasons flash photography is banned in most public buildings here – not just museums, but rail stations etc – isn't just potential damage to paintings, but the fact that sudden flashes activate automated emergency procedures. Many a tourist thinking it would be cool to take a photo of their family on a tube train has found themselves explaining themselves to the Counter-Terrorism Command over that one – Wikipedia even has a warning not to photograph stations in London buried in the Manual of Style. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if something similar comes into place soon in major US cities, too.)

[One]

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]

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]

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:

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:

[dogbiscuit]

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.

Yes it is, the point I was making is that if the institution was in the chain of events that led to such an issue, they would be crucified by the national press as failing to protect our heritage. If someone legitimately took a picture (for example at a location where the item was on loan and they did allow photography, or at a session where the NPG permitted it) then they could not have an issue. My point is that they should not be in a chain of releasing their own proprietary works into a field where they could be subject to abuse without redress.

The second point you are sneaking in is that there is an issue of making a subsidiary work of a copyrighted image. In the UK simply taking a photograph does not magically detach the copyright of the original work. The point the NPG was making is that they would not permit the photography of copyrighted works without an appropriate licence, so your second point would not apply.

[taiwopanfob]

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.

But Jimbo's reading is apparently incomplete.

If Alice takes a picture of the Mona Lisa, s.62 seems to say her copy does not infringe. Which perhaps means she can upload it.

But this does not imply that Bob can find the photograph on Alice's website and upload it, even assuming Alice could, since the section is silent on the copyright status of Alice's image.

Edit: in light of One's edit (above), we can change "Mona Lisa" to whatever applies under the section.


This post has been edited by taiwopanfob:

[One]

But Jimbo's reading is apparently incomplete.

If Alice takes a picture of the Mona Lisa, s.62 seems to say her copy does not infringe. Which perhaps means she can upload it.

But this does not imply that Bob can find the photograph on Alice's website and upload it, even assuming Alice could, since the section is silent on the copyright status of Alice's image.

Right, that was my first point: there's a difference between public domain and noninfringing use.

However, in this case it's irrelevant because s.62 does not--repeat not--apply to two dimensional works. Read further.

EDIT: It's actually curious to me that works of craftsmanship are protected by copyright. They normally are not in the United States. You might get trade dress or design patent protection to do something similar in some contexts, but the statute seems to contemplate only high-end craftsmanship. I'm not sure how that would encourage the creation of works, especially because things like sculpture castings much of their value by being originals to the artist. Is there a bootleg sculpture casting market?

This post has been edited by One:

[dogbiscuit]

The fundamental issue here is that the UK copyright law is up to date and quite sophisticated. They have thought through in detail what they are trying to protect and also that there are some things that are unfair or impractical to protect. In the UK, the work of the NPG is protected, regardless of what the position might be in another country.

As a UK citizen, I find it highly objectionable that some other country should ignore my country's legislation as if it is ignorant or incompetent. In this case it has a clear logic - which may not fit with legislation in another country, but it is consistent and as such should be respected.

In such an instance, it is highly immoral for citizens of another country to use illegal means (even if not particularly sophisticated) to subvert another country's legislation and to argue that because of the differing position in that country that they are right and correct to be the benefactors of an illegal act.

However, we come back to the fundamental problem of Wikipedia - it simply does not conceive itself as part of the real world and refuses to be bound by real world ethics practice and legislation. One day, that will be its undoing when the dysfunctional community decides that it is so important that it decides freedom of information is more important than national security, the mental health of an affected party or some such issue and is implicated in a major scandal that costs lives. What is worse, even when some tragedy strikes (and we see little tragedies on a regular basis) the Wikipedians will look the relatives in the eye and say "Not our problem - that is the cost of freedom of information, so fuck you."

[Moulton]

Dogbiscuit is right. An unethical system is an unsustainable system. Eventually, that will be Wikipedia's undoing.

[GlassBeadGame]

In light of this business, the National Portrait Gallery have taken their high resolution pictures off their website, I gather.

Correct. That happened in April according to Mr. Coetzee. But look at this (completely random) example. How could this "low res" image not be suitable for any encyclopedic use?

That is a fair question. Just because editors in the US can (we think) post super-high res versions doesn't necessarily mean we should.

But Wikipedia lacks the capacity for voluntary restraint.

[Apathetic]

What is worse, even when some tragedy strikes (and we see little tragedies on a regular basis) the Wikipedians will look the relatives in the eye and say "Not our problem - that is the cost of freedom of information, so fuck you."

I doubt they would break WP:CIVIL

[dogbiscuit]

What is worse, even when some tragedy strikes (and we see little tragedies on a regular basis) the Wikipedians will look the relatives in the eye and say "Not our problem - that is the cost of freedom of information, so fuck you."

I doubt they would break WP:CIVIL

OK, I will rephrase:

"Not our problem - that is the cost of freedom of information, so Ha! We dance on the skulls of your dead relatives."
(unless it was Guy who would call them cunts because it is a friendly term of endearment).

[Kato]

Working with, not against, cultural institutions

Durova, some guy called Orderinchaos, and Witty Lama (who I mentioned in my first post on this subject) pen an essay.

At no point in the essay do they mention that the NPG is a publicly owned institution that offers free access to all visitors. This is a crucial element. As is the battle over keeping galleries and museums free access which has raged for two decades.

None of the three essayists are British tax payers. None of them seem to know the background behind galleries and museums in the UK.

[GlassBeadGame]

Working with, not against, cultural institutions

Despite the title, which seems to suggest conciliation, this is another completely clueless exercise in self flattery that ignores the value of significant cultural institutions, such as NPG, which have been providing cultural access for decades or even centuries. A better title would be Why Others Must Work with Wikipedia.

[dtobias]

But you've got to admit that the attitude in the above essay is a lot more cooperative, constructive, and friendly than the attitudes you like to decry in Wikipedians and free-culturists; there's no "dancing on skulls" or labeling of people with epithets, and there's an attempt to understand the motives and needs of their opponents even if they don't agree with them.

[GlassBeadGame]

But you've got to admit that the attitude in the above essay is a lot more cooperative, constructive, and friendly than the attitudes you like to decry in Wikipedians and free-culturists; there's no "dancing on skulls" or labeling of people with epithets, and there's an attempt to understand the motives and needs of their opponents even if they don't agree with them.

Not skull dancing, no. But still self important and inward looking. I believe Durova is a bit of a weather vain and knows (as maybe even DG knows) that the public discourse is not going as well as they might have hoped. The poor noble kid bringing art to the world is attacked by the big greedy museum narrative is faltering.

[thekohser]

...Durova is a bit of a weather vain...

Pun intentional, or no?

[GlassBeadGame]

...Durova is a bit of a weather vain...

Pun intentional, or no?

Well, you know people of my elk.

[Cedric]

Working with, not against, cultural institutions

Despite the title, which seems to suggest conciliation, this is another completely clueless exercise in self flattery that ignores the value of significant cultural institutions, such as NPG, which have been providing cultural access for decades or even centuries. A better title would be Why Others Must Work with Wikipedia.

As well as yet another example of Durova posing as an "artwork restorer" just because she knows how to use Photoshop. The depths of her cluelessness and egotism are wonders to behold.

[dtobias]

...Durova is a bit of a weather vain...

Pun intentional, or no?

You're so vane, you probably think this pun is about you!

----------------
Now playing: Selena - Dreaming Of You
via FoxyTunes

[Random832]

...offers free access to all visitors.

Yes, for only the cost of travel.

[thekohser]

...offers free access to all visitors.

Yes, for only the cost of travel.

You make it sound like Mr. Coetzee (spelling?) took a double-decker bus to the museum every day in order to copy and steal the 3,000 images.

[Peter Damian]

Although major newpapers like the Guardian are covering this story, there appears to be no mention of this in the Wikipedia article about the NPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Port...allery_(London)

[edit] Perhaps someone could write a short section in the article about the theft, and then perhaps link to one of the stolen images. This would be quite good because in newspapers when a picture is stolen you normally see only a reproduction of the picture. But here you would be seeing the stolen image itself. And then could you claim a reward?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[MBisanz]

Although major newpapers like the Guardian are covering this story, there appears to be no mention of this in the Wikipedia article about the NPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Port...allery_(London)

I really hope we can restrain ourselves from promulgating the idea that a random intellectual property dispute with a website, that hasn't even reached a court of law, is worthy of mention in an article about a museum that opened in 1856.

[Peter Damian]

Although major newpapers like the Guardian are covering this story, there appears to be no mention of this in the Wikipedia article about the NPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Port...allery_(London)

I really hope we can restrain ourselves from promulgating the idea that a random intellectual property dispute with a website, that hasn't even reached a court of law, is worthy of mention in an article about a museum that opened in 1856.

See my remarks above about the 'stolen pictures' idea. When Munch's Scream painting was stolen I think that was reported in Wikipedia. So why not the theft of an image - particularly when the stolen item can itself be shown on the encyclopedia.

Also, if you are going to use the argument that less recent and boring events like foundation in the 19th century is more important then you open a serious can of worms, like why should Britney Spears get more space than Wittgenstein, e.g.? When I point out things like this I get masses of abuse from those en-Wiki.

[edit] Yes I was right there is masses about when the Scream was stolen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scream#Thefts

Why not choose one of the more important stolen paintings and an article about it then have a section about when it was stolen? That would be very exciting and would provide endless opportunities for mischief (fortunately I don't go in for drama so someone else will have to volunteer).

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[MBisanz]

Although major newpapers like the Guardian are covering this story, there appears to be no mention of this in the Wikipedia article about the NPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Port...allery_(London)

I really hope we can restrain ourselves from promulgating the idea that a random intellectual property dispute with a website, that hasn't even reached a court of law, is worthy of mention in an article about a museum that opened in 1856.

See my remarks above about the 'stolen pictures' idea. When Munch's Scream painting was stolen I think that was reported in Wikipedia. So why not the theft of an image - particularly when the stolen item can itself be shown on the encyclopedia.

Also, if you are going to use the argument that less recent and boring events like foundation in the 19th century is more important then you open a serious can of worms, like why should Britney Spears get more space than Wittgenstein, e.g.? When I point out things like this I get masses of abuse from those en-Wiki.

[edit] Yes I was right there is masses about when the Scream was stolen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scream#Thefts

Why not choose one of the more important stolen paintings and an article about it then have a section about when it was stolen? That would be very exciting and would provide endless opportunities for mischief (fortunately I don't go in for drama so someone else will have to volunteer).

I knew we had a rule on this: Wikipedia:SELFREF

When a notable person, especially a writer or media personality, mentions Wikipedia, there may be a temptation to add any such mention to their Wikipedia article. However, to avoid self reference, this needs to be balanced with its importance in their overall body of work. For example, a radio host mentioning on one show that he read his Wikipedia biography is not a very important event in his overall career. A rare exception to this is, for example, the article on John Seigenthaler, because the media attention surrounding his Wikipedia entry is now a notable event in his public life.

Not sure I agree with exactly how that is worded, but I imagine one lawsuit in the history of this gallery is hardly important to its overall body of work (which probably encompasses dozens of lawsuits, among other things, over the last 150 years).

[Peter Damian]

Not sure I agree with exactly how that is worded, but I imagine one lawsuit in the history of this gallery is hardly important to its overall body of work (which probably encompasses dozens of lawsuits, among other things, over the last 150 years).

Yes but then we are back to the Britney Spears argument.

[MBisanz]

Not sure I agree with exactly how that is worded, but I imagine one lawsuit in the history of this gallery is hardly important to its overall body of work (which probably encompasses dozens of lawsuits, among other things, over the last 150 years).

Yes but then we are back to the Britney Spears argument.

We have different arguments here.

You are saying you do not like it when a recent article is longer/more detailed/etc than a more important historical article with lasting relevance.

I am saying I don't like it when any article focuses too much on inane or trivial features of the topic.

You don't like Britney Spears being longer than Wittgenstein.

I wouldn't like it is Britney Spears had a section detailing every time she didn't wear panties and was photographed getting out of the car.

[No one of consequence]

I wonder if anyone has actually read the Bridgeman decision. Since the works of art involved were held, in part, in UK museums, the Court looked at the situation under both US and UK law.

United Kingdom Law

[26] While the Court's conclusion as to the law governing copyrightability renders the point moot, the Court is persuaded that plaintiff's copyright claim would fail even if the governing law were that of the United Kingdom.

[27] Plaintiff's attack on the Court's previous conclusion that its color transparencies are not original and therefore not copyrightable under British law depends primarily on its claim that the Court failed to apply Graves' Case, a nisi prius decision and the supposedly controlling authority that plaintiff did not even cite in its opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment.

[28] Graves' Case in relevant part involved an application to cancel entries on the no longer extant Register of Proprietors of Copyright in Paintings, Drawings and Photographs for three photographs of engravings.[43] In rejecting the contention that the photographs were not copyrightable because they were copies of the engravings, Justice Blackburn wrote:
"The distinction between an original painting and its copy is well understood, but it is difficult to say what can be meant by an original photograph. All photographs are copies of some object, such as a painting or statue. And it seems to me that a photograph taken from a picture is an original photograph, in so far that to copy it is an infringement of the statute."[44]

[29] Plaintiff and the amicus therefore argue that plaintiff's photographs of public domain paintings are copyrightable under British law. But they overlook the antiquity of Graves' Case and the subsequent development of the law of originality in the United Kingdom.

[30] Laddie, a modern British copyright treatise the author of which now is a distinguished British judge, discusses the issue at Bar in a helpful manner:
"It is obvious that although a man may get a copyright by taking a photograph of some well-known object like Westminster Abbey, he does not get a monopoly in representing Westminister Abbey as such, any more than an artist would who painted or drew that building. What, then, is the scope of photographic copyright? As always with artistic works, this depends on what makes his photograph original. Under the 1988 Act the author is the person who made the original contribution and it will be evident that this person need not be he who pressed the trigger, who might be a mere assistant. Originality presupposes the exercise of substantial independent skill, labour, judgment and so forth. For this reason it is submitted that a person who makes a photograph merely by placing a drawing or painting on the glass of a photocopying machine and pressing the button gets no copyright at all; but he might get a copyright if he employed skill and labour in assembling the thing to be photocopied, as where he made a montage. It will be evident that in photography there is room for originality in three respects. First, there may be originality which does not depend on creation of the scene or object to be photographed or anything remarkable about its capture, and which resides in such specialties as angle of shot, light and shade, exposure, effects achieved by means of filters, developing techniques etc: in such manner does one photograph of Westminster Abbey differ from another, at least potentially. Secondly, there may be creation of the scene or subject to be photographed. We have already mentioned photo-montage, but a more common instance would be arrangement or posing of a group ... Thirdly, a person may create a worthwhile photograph by being at the right place at the right time. Here his merit consists of capturing and recording a scene unlikely to recur, e.g. a battle between an elephant and a tiger ..."[45]

[31] Moreover, the authors go on to question the continued authority of Graves' Case under just this analysis:
"It is submitted that Graves' Case (1869) LR 4 QB 715 (photograph of an engraving), a case under the Fine Arts Copyright Act 1862, does not decide the contrary, since there may have been special skill or labour in setting up the equipment to get a good photograph, especially with the rather primitive materials available in those days. Although the judgments do not discuss this aspect it may have been self-evident to any contemporary so as not to require any discussion. If this is wrong it is submitted that Graves' Case is no longer good law and in that case is to be explained as a decision made before the subject of originality had been fully developed by the courts.[46]

[32] This analysis is quite pertinent in this case. Most photographs are "original" in one if not more of the three respects set out in the treatise and therefore are copyrightable. Plaintiff's problem here is that it seeks protection for the exception that proves the rule: photographs of existing two-dimensional articles (in this case works of art), each of which reproduces the article in the photographic medium as precisely as technology permits. Its transparencies stand in the same relation to the original works of art as a photocopy stands to a page of typescript, a doodle, or a Michelangelo drawing.[47]

[33] Plaintiff nevertheless argues that the photocopier analogy is inapt because taking a photograph requires greater skill than making a photocopy and because these transparencies involved a change in medium. But the argument is as unpersuasive under British as under U.S. law.

[34] The allegedly greater skill required to make an exact photographic, as opposed to Xerographic or comparable, copy is immaterial. As the Privy Council wrote in Interlego AG v. Tyco Industries, Inc.,[48] "skill, labor or judgment merely in the process of copying cannot confer originality ..."[49] The point is exactly the same as the unprotectibility under U.S. law of a "slavish copy."

[35] Nor is the change in medium, standing alone, significant. The treatise relied upon by plaintiff for the contrary proposition does not support it. It states that "a change of medium will often entitle a reproduction of an existing artistic work to independent protection."[50] And it goes on to explain:
"Again, an engraver is almost invariably a copyist, but his work may still be original in the sense that he has employed skill and judgment in its production. An engraver produces the resemblance he wishes by means which are very different from those employed by the painter or draughtsman from whom he copies; means which require a high degree of skill and labour. The engraver produces his effect by the management of light and shade, or, as the term of his art expresses it, the chiaroscuro. The required degree of light and shade are produced by different lines and dots; the engraver must decide on the choice of the different lines or dots for himself, and on his choice depends the success of his print."[51]

[36] Thus, the authors implicitly recognize that a change of medium alone is not sufficient to render the product original and copyrightable. Rather, a copy in a new medium is copyrightable only where, as often but not always is the case, the copier makes some identifiable original contribution. In the words of the Privy Council in Interlogo AG, "there must ... be some element of material alteration or embellishment which suffices to make the totality of the work an original work."[52] Indeed, plaintiff's expert effectively concedes the same point, noting that copyright "may" subsist in a photograph of a work of art because "change of medium is likely to amount to a material alteration from the original work, unless the change of medium is so insignificant as not to confer originality ..."[53]

[37] Here, as the Court noted in its earlier opinion, "it is uncontested that Bridgeman's images are substantially exact reproductions of public domain works, albeit in a different medium."[54] There has been no suggestion that they vary significantly from the underlying works. In consequence, the change of medium is immaterial.

[38] Finally, the amicus argues that this result is contraindicated because public art collections in the United Kingdom charge fees for reproductions of photographic images of works in their collections, thus evidencing their view that the images are protected by copyright. But the issue here is not the position of an economically interested constituency on an issue that has not been litigated, at least in this century, but the content of the originality requirement of the British Copyright Act. Moreover, it is far from clear what the understanding of British art collections, if any, actually is. Certainly, for example, there are original works of art in British public art collections in which copyright subsists and is owned by the collections, in which case reproduction rights no doubt are a fit subject for exploitation.[55]

[39] For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court is persuaded that its original conclusion that Bridgeman's transparencies are not copyrightable under British law was correct.

bold=my emphasis

Now, obviously an analysis of UK law by a US court is not binding on UK courts, but if the NPG ever finds a UK-based person to threaten, this certainly is a good road map for the defense.

The fundamental issue here is that the UK copyright law is up to date and quite sophisticated. They have thought through in detail what they are trying to protect and also that there are some things that are unfair or impractical to protect. In the UK, the work of the NPG is protected, regardless of what the position might be in another country.

As a UK citizen, I find it highly objectionable that some other country should ignore my country's legislation as if it is ignorant or incompetent. In this case it has a clear logic - which may not fit with legislation in another country, but it is consistent and as such should be respected.

Might want to re-think this argument...

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[taiwopanfob]

I wonder if anyone has actually read the Bridgeman. decision. Since the works of art involved were held, in part, in UK museums, the Court conducted a thorough analysis of UK law.

As has been noted a while ago here, MichaelMaggs, at Commons, did:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_...ll_for_revision

"The same arguments would apply to an attempted faithful reproduction by a photographer, and indeed Laddie uses the photographic analogy to bolster his painting argument: "Further, a photographer who carefully took a photograph of an original painting might get a copyright and it is rather hard to see why a copy of the same degree of fidelity, if rendered by an artist of the calibre forementioned, would not be copyright." The use of the word "might" could perhaps signify some uncertainty, but it appears not since in another example of a painter who has copied some ancient paintings, since lost, Laddie comments: "If it had been possible to photograph these works nobody would deny that the photographer would get a copyright and it is somewhat hard to see why the painter who renders a like service should be worse off"."

(That is Maggs, with quotes from Laddie.) You might find the rest of Maggs' analysis useful as well, as he presents many other cases that lead one to an easy conclusion NPG isn't just pulling this all out of their ass.

Basically, Mr. No One Of Consequence, the entire Wiki-argument about "it's just a purely mechanical reproduction, no creativity required whatsoever" is premised on the belief in some magical, totally Autonomous Photographic Algorithm. Just wheel in the robot, push the button, and a copy comes out the other end.

Unfortunately, the adherents of such a view Don't Know What They Are Talking About™. Are you a member of that cult?

This post has been edited by taiwopanfob:

[Nerd]

We should not be mentioning this case on the gallery article yet because it gives undue weight to a recent event that may not even be that important in the long run. That's known as recentism.

[GlassBeadGame]

I wonder if anyone has actually read the Bridgeman. decision. Since the works of art involved were held, in part, in UK museums, the Court conducted a thorough analysis of UK law.

United Kingdom Law
...

A US District Federal trial court, or even SCOTUS has no authority over English (I believe that is more correct than to say UK or British) courts. If it can persuade English courts, fine. If not, it can expect to chided a bit harsher than a lower domestic authority. It has no more value than a amicus brief from an interest party if brought to the attention of the court. That the Wikipedia article on Bridgeman goes on for five paragraphs in a section Effect on UK Law is unwarranted nonsense and probably a little offensive to the English.

[taiwopanfob]

We should not be mentioning this case on the gallery article yet because it gives undue weight to a recent event that may not even be that important in the long run. That's known as recentism.

Try that argument at any article cited in "In The News" and see how far it gets you.

[thekohser]

...but if the NPG ever finds a UK-based person to threaten...

I thought the image stealer lives in London?

I wouldn't like it is Britney Spears had a section detailing every time she didn't wear panties and was photographed getting out of the car.

Yeah, it's so much more comforting to know that Wikipedia has focused on this instead:

In September 2007, the official findings in Spears's custody battle were announced by the court. She was ordered to undergo random drug and alcohol testing and to attend parenting counseling. Spears and Federline continued to share joint custody of their two children on a conditional basis.[104] A few days later, she was officially charged with misdemeanor hit-and-run and driving without a license. If convicted, she could have faced a year in jail.[105] Spears lost physical custody of her children to Federline on October 1,[106][107] with the court ruling that Federline will keep full custody of the children.[108] The charges for her alleged hit-and-run that occurred in August 2007 were officially laid,[109] she was booked for the charges by the Los Angeles Police Department on October 15 but was not arrested.[110]

[Moulton]

The article doesn't say who gained custody of her lost underwear?

[bambi]

...but if the NPG ever finds a UK-based person to threaten...

I thought the image stealer lives in London?

No, he's in Redmond, Washington, USA.

[Peter Damian]

We should not be mentioning this case on the gallery article yet because it gives undue weight to a recent event that may not even be that important in the long run. That's known as recentism.

My point was that Britney Spears is an event that is not that important 'in the long run'.

[Nerd]

We should not be mentioning this case on the gallery article yet because it gives undue weight to a recent event that may not even be that important in the long run. That's known as recentism.

My point was that Britney Spears is an event that is not that important 'in the long run'.

I would disagree with that.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

We should not be mentioning this case on the gallery article yet because it gives undue weight to a recent event that may not even be that important in the long run. That's known as recentism.

Some wikiheroes think that's a good thing.

Except when it might cast wikipedia in a worse light?

[One]

I really hope we can restrain ourselves from promulgating the idea that a random intellectual property dispute with a website, that hasn't even reached a court of law, is worthy of mention in an article about a museum that opened in 1856.

Matt wins a kewpie doll.

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.

At any rate, where did you get this ludicrously incorrect interpretation? If they're discussing it somewhere, I would like to correct them per xkcd.

[Nerd]

We should not be mentioning this case on the gallery article yet because it gives undue weight to a recent event that may not even be that important in the long run. That's known as recentism.

Some wikiheroes think that's a good thing.

Except when it might cast wikipedia in a worse light?

Interesting who wrote that!

[Kato]

The BBC article on the incident is here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/a...ure/8151989.stm

This piece is more favourable to the NPG than Wikipedia.

[Peter Damian]

This is the article that needs updating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_theft

[taiwopanfob]

This is the article that needs updating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_theft

Come now, Mr. Damian, whatever one may think of dcoetzee's actions, we need to remember that those paintings are still hanging in the Gallery. Maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement?

[GlassBeadGame]

The BBC article on the incident is here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/a...ure/8151989.stm

This piece is more favourable to the NPG than Wikipedia.

The NPG said the breach undermines its £1m project to digitise its collection.

NPG is handling the press relations in this matter just right.

[Peter Damian]

This is the article that needs updating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_theft

Come now, Mr. Damian, whatever one may think of dcoetzee's actions, we need to remember that those paintings are still hanging in the Gallery. Maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement?

Theft of copyright is still theft.

http://www.fact-uk.org.uk/

[GlassBeadGame]

This is the article that needs updating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_theft

Not over-reaching is perhaps the key to handing WP its arse in this matter.

[Peter Damian]

Althought Wikipedia seems to think it is not theft.

FACT's name is misleading since there is no such offence within the United Kingdom of 'Copyright Theft' under the Theft Act 1968. When copyrighted material is copied it is not removing the material permanently from its owner. Copyright infringement is not theft, stealing or 'twokking' (taking without consent). Instead, it is the possession/publication of a copy or copies of copyright material without a suitable license from the owner.[1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_Ag...Copyright_Theft

[taiwopanfob]

We should not be mentioning this case on the gallery article yet because it gives undue weight to a recent event that may not even be that important in the long run. That's known as recentism.

If we peer into:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa#Legacy

We find:

"A later reproduction of the Mona Lisa was discovered painted onto a hillside near Newport, Oregon on 15 August 2008. It was created by artist Samuel Clemens using a tarp stencil and water-based paint. [39]"

... 'Not important in the long run' ... hm. So how about it, Nerd? If the article on the Mona Lisa -- the Mona Lisa -- can be used to give a web-hit for someone named "Samuel Clemens", on the basis of a single news article, then why can't the current NPG v. Dcoetzee/WMF brewing blowup be mentioned at article for the prestigious National Portrait Gallery? True, the NPG has been around for 150 years, and clearly not an institution or article to be trifled with, but do recall that the Mona Lisa clocks in at 500 years.

[gadfly]

Since some kind of evasion of the copy protection the NPG put on its website seems to have happened in order to download and then put the images on wikipedia, then I would hope that, at least, some expert opinion concerning whether the UK's Computer Misuse Act applies to this action.

If it doesn't, then all right; but if it does, it would be interesting to see the potential assymetry in extradition procedings that could result comparing this case with the chap who was extradited (or who the USA is trying to extradite) to the USA for supposedly breaching rules concerning access to a USA government site.

Of course, I may be talking bollocks here as I am no expert.

This post has been edited by gadfly:

[Random832]

FACT's name is misleading since there is no such offence within the United Kingdom of 'Copyright Theft' under the Theft Act 1968. When copyrighted material is copied it is not removing the material permanently from its owner. Copyright infringement is not theft, stealing or 'twokking' (taking without consent). Instead, it is the possession/publication of a copy or copies of copyright material without a suitable license from the owner.[1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_Ag...Copyright_Theft

They're right, of course, but this is as clear-cut a violation of WP:SYNTH as I've ever seen. Neither of the sources cited says a single word about FACT.

[dtobias]

why should Britney Spears get more space than Wittgenstein, e.g.?

Because I, for one, wouldn't find a picture of Wittgenstein in his underwear to be particularly arousing.

[TungstenCarbide]

The BBC article on the incident is here:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/a...ure/8151989.stm

NPG is handling the press relations in this matter just right.

And the BBC is regurgitating them.

[MZMcBride]

...offers free access to all visitors.

Yes, for only the cost of travel.

You make it sound like Mr. Coetzee (spelling?) took a double-decker bus to the museum every day in order to copy and steal the 3,000 images.

You make it sound as though it would make a difference in your view if Mr. Coetzee had gone there himself and done the work in-person.

[GlassBeadGame]

The BBC article on the incident is here:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/a...ure/8151989.stm

NPG is handling the press relations in this matter just right.

And the BBC is regurgitating them.

Maybe someone showed them a pic of WMF/UK spokesperson David Gerard. That could effect stomach contents.

...offers free access to all visitors.

Yes, for only the cost of travel.

You make it sound like Mr. Coetzee (spelling?) took a double-decker bus to the museum every day in order to copy and steal the 3,000 images.

You make it sound as though it would make a difference in your view if Mr. Coetzee had gone there himself and done the work in-person.

That would amount to clear cut trespass.

[MZMcBride]

The fundamental issue here is that the UK copyright law is up to date and quite sophisticated. They have thought through in detail what they are trying to protect and also that there are some things that are unfair or impractical to protect. In the UK, the work of the NPG is protected, regardless of what the position might be in another country.

As a UK citizen, I find it highly objectionable that some other country should ignore my country's legislation as if it is ignorant or incompetent. In this case it has a clear logic - which may not fit with legislation in another country, but it is consistent and as such should be respected.

In such an instance, it is highly immoral for citizens of another country to use illegal means (even if not particularly sophisticated) to subvert another country's legislation and to argue that because of the differing position in that country that they are right and correct to be the benefactors of an illegal act.

However, we come back to the fundamental problem of Wikipedia - it simply does not conceive itself as part of the real world and refuses to be bound by real world ethics practice and legislation. One day, that will be its undoing when the dysfunctional community decides that it is so important that it decides freedom of information is more important than national security, the mental health of an affected party or some such issue and is implicated in a major scandal that costs lives. What is worse, even when some tragedy strikes (and we see little tragedies on a regular basis) the Wikipedians will look the relatives in the eye and say "Not our problem - that is the cost of freedom of information, so fuck you."

Damn those Americans and their adherence to American law. You honestly find it objectionable that people from other countries don't follow your laws (putting aside whether your laws are logical or "correct")? I thought it was the Americans who were supposed to have such an imperialistic and egotistic attitude.

I could perhaps understand the latter part of your argument involving the ethics behind something like this, but to suggest that any person is subject to the laws of another country simply because those laws are well-reasoned, logical, or up to date (as you put it) is simply ludicrous.

...offers free access to all visitors.

Yes, for only the cost of travel.

You make it sound like Mr. Coetzee (spelling?) took a double-decker bus to the museum every day in order to copy and steal the 3,000 images.

You make it sound as though it would make a difference in your view if Mr. Coetzee had gone there himself and done the work in-person.

That would amount to clear cut trespass.

Trespass? To visit an art gallery?

[GlassBeadGame]

The fundamental issue here is that the UK copyright law is up to date and quite sophisticated. They have thought through in detail what they are trying to protect and also that there are some things that are unfair or impractical to protect. In the UK, the work of the NPG is protected, regardless of what the position might be in another country.

As a UK citizen, I find it highly objectionable that some other country should ignore my country's legislation as if it is ignorant or incompetent. In this case it has a clear logic - which may not fit with legislation in another country, but it is consistent and as such should be respected.

In such an instance, it is highly immoral for citizens of another country to use illegal means (even if not particularly sophisticated) to subvert another country's legislation and to argue that because of the differing position in that country that they are right and correct to be the benefactors of an illegal act.

However, we come back to the fundamental problem of Wikipedia - it simply does not conceive itself as part of the real world and refuses to be bound by real world ethics practice and legislation. One day, that will be its undoing when the dysfunctional community decides that it is so important that it decides freedom of information is more important than national security, the mental health of an affected party or some such issue and is implicated in a major scandal that costs lives. What is worse, even when some tragedy strikes (and we see little tragedies on a regular basis) the Wikipedians will look the relatives in the eye and say "Not our problem - that is the cost of freedom of information, so fuck you."

Damn those Americans and their adherence to American law. You honestly find it objectionable that people from other countries don't follow your laws (putting aside whether your laws are logical or "correct")? I thought it was the Americans who were supposed to have such an imperialistic and egotistic attitude.

I could perhaps understand the latter part of your argument involving the ethics behind something like this, but to suggest that any person is subject to the laws of another country simply because those laws are well-reasoned, logical, or up to date (as you put it) is simply ludicrous.

Farrer & Co outlned thier theory of jurisdiction in the letter to Mr. Coetzee:

Jurisdiction of UK Courts

Whilst we know that you are based in the United States of America, your activities nevertheless give rise to claims under UK law because:

1. The servers on which our client’s website is hosted are based in the UK and therefore, technically, your unlawful downloading (which give rise to some of the copyright, database right and breach of contract claims described herein) took place in the UK; and

2. The pages of the Wikipedia website on which you have reproduced our client’s images are clearly directed at (amongst others) UK users of the website.

Presumably English law would provide him with an opportunity to test this theory of jurisdiction by motion early in the litigation process in English courts or he could just default if he wanted to risk raising the issue in US courts when NPG acted to enforce the judgment.

[Kato]

Damn those Americans and their adherence to American law. You honestly find it objectionable that people from other countries don't follow your laws (putting aside whether your laws are logical or "correct")? I thought it was the Americans who were supposed to have such an imperialistic and egotistic attitude.

You suppose right.

"US says it has right to kidnap British citizens".

[GlassBeadGame]

Trespass? To visit an art gallery?

Trespass when you take a picture on their property against the express terms of the license (nothing to do with IP) granted to you in order to permit your entry on their property.

[EricBarbour]

Yes but then we are back to the Britney Spears argument.

I wouldn't like it is Britney Spears had a section detailing every time she didn't wear panties and was photographed getting out of the car.

Dear Mister Bisanz:
Why not have a panty section? Your Holy Wikipedia already has sections about Fred Durst claiming to have dated her. And her being sued by Louis Vuitton for showing their logo in a video. And Dr. Phil visiting her in her hospital room. And a radio station mocking her in advertisements (TWO PARTS). And her disputes with paparazzi. And, ooohh! Accusations of lip-synching onstage!

And oh yeah, Britney's pantyless photo is mentioned twice that I can find on the Mighty Wiki.
Not to mention the Wardrobe Malfunction article.

In short, sir: (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[RMHED]

THE NPG will not take any legal action against the uploader.

The NPG will not take any legal action against the WMF.

The NPG will in future be very careful not to have hi-res images on its website.

The NPG will do what it can behind the scenes to cause the WMF to get bad publicity.

The NPG will spread as much ill feeling about the WMF to other museums/institutions as it can.

The NPG has a long memory and the WMF may well come to regret pissing them off.

The NPG will endure long into the future, I doubt the WMF will.

THE NPG will have the last laugh.

[Kato]

Spot on.

[Shalom]

THE NPG will not take any legal action against the uploader.

The NPG will not take any legal action against the WMF.

The NPG will in future be very careful not to have hi-res images on its website.

The NPG will do what it can behind the scenes to cause the WMF to get bad publicity.

The NPG will spread as much ill feeling about the WMF to other museums/institutions as it can.

The NPG has a long memory and the WMF may well come to regret pissing them off.

The NPG will endure long into the future, I doubt the WMF will.

THE NPG will have the last laugh.

Not sure about the revenge prediction. I see no reason why the NPG would actively encourage other museums from donating content to the WMF. Maybe I don't see the desire in revenge in others, but in this scenario it just doesn't make much sense.

As to your prediction that NPG will outlast WMF: difficult to argue with that.

[RMHED]

THE NPG will not take any legal action against the uploader.

The NPG will not take any legal action against the WMF.

The NPG will in future be very careful not to have hi-res images on its website.

The NPG will do what it can behind the scenes to cause the WMF to get bad publicity.

The NPG will spread as much ill feeling about the WMF to other museums/institutions as it can.

The NPG has a long memory and the WMF may well come to regret pissing them off.

The NPG will endure long into the future, I doubt the WMF will.

THE NPG will have the last laugh.

Not sure about the revenge prediction. I see no reason why the NPG would actively encourage other museums from donating content to the WMF. Maybe I don't see the desire in revenge in others, but in this scenario it just doesn't make much sense.

As to your prediction that NPG will outlast WMF: difficult to argue with that.

It wouldn't be about revenge, it's more to do with putting an upstart back in its place.

Any poison would of course be spread with a deal of subtlety, something the WMF seems to lack.

The NPG has gravitas, history and prestige, Wikipedia has a popular website, dysfunctional governance and Jimmy Wales.

I know who I'd back in the long term survival stakes.

[EricBarbour]

The NPG has gravitas, history and prestige, Wikipedia has a popular website, dysfunctional governance and Jimmy Wales.
I know who I'd back in the long term survival stakes.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wave.gif) That would look nice on a granite monument.

[SB_Johnny]

The NPG has gravitas, history and prestige, Wikipedia has a popular website, dysfunctional governance and Jimmy Wales.
I know who I'd back in the long term survival stakes.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wave.gif) That would look nice on a granite monument.

Yeah, especially if the monument is somethere where there's no "freedom of panorama" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[MBisanz]

Yes but then we are back to the Britney Spears argument.

I wouldn't like it is Britney Spears had a section detailing every time she didn't wear panties and was photographed getting out of the car.

Dear Mister Bisanz:
Why not have a panty section? Your Holy Wikipedia already has sections about Fred Durst claiming to have dated her. And her being sued by Louis Vuitton for showing their logo in a video. And Dr. Phil visiting her in her hospital room. And a radio station mocking her in advertisements (TWO PARTS). And her disputes with paparazzi. And, ooohh! Accusations of lip-synching onstage!

And oh yeah, Britney's pantyless photo is mentioned twice that I can find on the Mighty Wiki.
Not to mention the Wardrobe Malfunction article.

In short, sir: (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

What I like and what exists are two different things. Learning how to accept/rationalize that discrepancy is why I still edit.

This post has been edited by MBisanz:

[GlassBeadGame]

Mr. Coetzee has finally lawyered up.

[thekohser]

Mr. Coetzee has finally lawyered up.

Of course, it's the Electronic Frontier Foundation butting in, again.

Sorry, I don't trust an organization that spends less than 50% of its inbound revenues on program services. I just gave them "one star" as my rating, on GuideStar.org and GreatNonProfits.org.

[EricBarbour]

Mr. Coetzee has finally lawyered up.

Of course, it's the Electronic Frontier Foundation butting in, again.

I trust you guys realize why the NPG is pursuing this......
you can thank David Eady for this little stunt.
He invented something wonderful.....libel tourism.

[Newsfeed]

New Developments In NPG Wikipedia Lawsuit Threat
Slashdot
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

View the article

[tarantino]

Erik Moeller has responded on the Wikimedia blog.

Most responses are critical of the Foundation's actions so far.

C Johnson Says:
July 17th, 2009 at 17:48

What you’ve done is undermine the National Portrait Gallery’s programme of digitizing its collection at high resolution, which is a loss to all of us. How do you think they’re paying for this programme? With free beer?

You could have accepted the free release of medium-resolution images, but no, you think your size and self-appointed non-profit status means you never have to pay for a damn thing. Well hello bully-boys – you’re not the freedom-fighters you think you are. You’ve just proved yourselves thugs.

[Peter Damian]

I commented

Wikipedia is not "a volunteer community promoting free access to education and culture". What is your evidence for saying that? I am a long-standing contributor (user:Peter Damian) who has tried for many years to contribute on educational and cultural matters. I don't see that the pornographers who control Wikipedia are contributing in any way to education or culture.

Reply

Your location has been identified as part of a reported spam network. Comments have been disabled to prevent spam.

[GlassBeadGame]

I commented

Wikipedia is not "a volunteer community promoting free access to education and culture". What is your evidence for saying that? I am a long-standing contributor (user:Peter Damian) who has tried for many years to contribute on educational and cultural matters. I don't see that the pornographers who control Wikipedia are contributing in any way to education or culture.

Reply

Your location has been identified as part of a reported spam network. Comments have been disabled to prevent spam.

Some information want that wants to be free is more equal than other information that wants to be free.

[thekohser]

Erik Moeller has responded on the Wikimedia blog.

I responded:

I would like the world to consider some information that "wants to be free". The information is not copyrighted, and it is being horded by a non-profit organization whose mission it is to spread free knowledge to the world. Ready?

1. We want a high-resolution image of the receipt from Moscow that Jimmy Wales attempted to submit for reimbursement by Danny Wool, but was rejected.

2. We want the street address of the Wikimedia Foundation headquarters.

3. We want disclosure of the salaries and benefits packages of the Executive Director and the Deputy Director of the non-profit 501-c(3) organization, Wikimedia Foundation.

4. We want an explanation why (according to the Foundation's most recent Form 990) the Wikimedia Foundation spends only 31.6% of its incoming revenue on actual "program services", the very mission of any non-profit.

5. We want the names of the members of the secret mailing lists that were hosted in 2007 on Wikia, Inc. servers, that led Jimmy Wales to "advise the world to relax a notch or two". We have not relaxed.

6. We want a high-resolution image of the rental contract signed in 2009 by the tenant Wikimedia Foundation to landlord Wikia, Inc.

Slavish reproduction of these public domain pieces of information should not infringe on anyone's copyright, correct? This information would be highly educational, and therefore within the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation's pursuit of free knowledge. So, we await publication of these items, under a free, copyleft license, Erik.

I am requesting this information as a founding trustee of the Florida non-profit organization, the Internet Review Corporation. It seems obvious that a public benefit organization and a volunteer community promoting free access to education and culture should be allies with us rather than adversaries.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[carbuncle]

The Wikipedia blog seems to think my IP is "part of a spam-distributing network" so I am unable to post there. Here is my unaccepted comment:

Erik, I note that the Bundesarchiv archive donations which you cite as an example are described as "800 pixels in size on the longer side". Much larger images are available at the Bundesarchiv, so it seems that the archive has freely shared medium resolution copies with Wikipedia.

It is my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the NPG is willing to allow low or medium resolution images on Wikipedia. Why is it necessary for Wikipedia to host these high resolution images from the NPG (regardless of how they came to be there), when it could host lower resolution images which would serve the same purpose (i.e. illustrating articles)? Interested readers can see the higher resolution images at the NPG's website if they so desire.

Perhaps someone can ask the relevant questions for me?

[Kelly Martin]

The antispam filter on the Wikipedia blog seems to have some pretty bad problems with false positives, doesn't it?

[Moulton]

You’ve just proved yourselves thugs.

Evidence of thuggery in WikiCulture is so ubiquitous that this additional instance would have been insignificant, save for the mainstream press coverage.

[The Wales Hunter]

Apologies if this has been posted, but an English legal viewpoint on copyright of copies of images in the post Bridgeman era:

http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/bridge.htm

Following a 1999 court decision in the USA challenging the existence of copyright in a photograph of a work of art (The Bridgeman Art Library -v- Corel Corporation 97 Civ.6232 (LAK) New York Southern District Court), the Museums Copyright Group set out to clarify the position for UK museums. The question is of considerable importance to museums. Revenue raised from reproduction fees and licensing is vital to museums to support their primary educational and curatorial objectives. Museums also rely on copyright in photographs of works of art to protect their collections from inaccurate reproduction and captioning. The decision appeared to threaten this position, prompting concern that museum photographs of out-of-copyright works of art would be vulnerable to piracy.

The Museums Copyright Group commissioned an in-depth report on the effect of Bridgeman -v- Corel on the museum sector. This concluded that:

* Bridgeman -v- Corel is not binding in the UK and is of doubtful authority even in the USA. It has not influenced the way museums negotiate or license rights and there have been no serious attempts by commercial users to undermine the position of museums.
* Museums must continue to lobby to ensure that their interests are sufficiently acknowledged in the copyright sphere. They must liaise with similar organisations in Europe and the UK. Currently the interests of museums are not sufficiently well reflected in copyright law.
* Museums must brief themselves in other relevant areas of intellectual property law such as database law and trade mark protection.
* Museums must manage their licensing activities through effective contracts. They should be particularly careful about protecting digital images. Three members of the Museums Copyright Group (with support from the Museums & Galleries Commission) have written the Guide to Copyright for Museums and Galleries, which includes pro forma contracts for museums. Routledge published the book in May 2000.

Following the report the Museums Copyright Group has obtained an opinion from Jonathan Rayner James QC, a leading copyright specialist, who has no doubt that UK copyright law protects photographs of works of art:

"... as a matter of principle, a photograph of an artistic work can qualify for copyright protection in English law, and that is so irrespective of whether ... the subject of the photographs is more obviously a three dimensional work, such as a sculpture, or is perceived as a two dimensional artistic work, such as a drawing or a painting ..."

Peter Wienand, the Museum Copyright Group's Chairman, and a partner at solicitors Farrer & Co, said:

"… following Bridgeman -v- Corel it is vital that the museum community are clear on where they stand in relation to photographic copyright. While museums will always need to protect themselves contractually, the Report and leading counsel's opinion gives museums the confidence to continue releasing photographs of objects in their collections. This is extremely important news for the sector and will ensure that museums can continue to monitor reproduction quality, protect the integrity of the work, and not least to protect a vital source of income for many museums".

Background

Bridgeman -v- Corel

The Bridgeman Art Library (UK) brought an action against Corel Corporation for breach of copyright in the USA and lost. The crucial issue for museums was whether a photograph of a work of art is an original work and thus protected by copyright law. In the New York Southern District Court, Judge Kaplan, using UK law to reach his first decision, ruled that a photograph of an out-of-copyright artwork is not itself sufficiently original to have copyright protection.

Judge Kaplan was asked to review his decision and following re-argument reached the same conclusion a second time, this time based on American law but again citing British law.

The decision is not binding on courts in the UK, nor is it of overwhelming authority in the USA, but it has caused great concern amongst the museum community which relies on income received from licensing photographic reproductions of objects and works in their collections. Museums are also concerned that unauthorised copying will undermine the quality and integrity of image reproduction.

[GlassBeadGame]

Apologies if this has been posted, but an English legal viewpoint on copyright of copies of images in the post Bridgeman era:

http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/bridge.htm

Following a 1999 court decision in the USA challenging the existence of copyright in a photograph of a work of art (The Bridgeman Art Library -v- Corel Corporation 97 Civ.6232 (LAK) New York Southern District Court), the Museums Copyright Group set out to clarify the position for UK museums. The question is of considerable importance to museums. Revenue raised from reproduction fees and licensing is vital to museums to support their primary educational and curatorial objectives. Museums also rely on copyright in photographs of works of art to protect their collections from inaccurate reproduction and captioning. The decision appeared to threaten this position, prompting concern that museum photographs of out-of-copyright works of art would be vulnerable to piracy.

The Museums Copyright Group commissioned an in-depth report on the effect of Bridgeman -v- Corel on the museum sector. This concluded that:

* Bridgeman -v- Corel is not binding in the UK and is of doubtful authority even in the USA. It has not influenced the way museums negotiate or license rights and there have been no serious attempts by commercial users to undermine the position of museums.
* Museums must continue to lobby to ensure that their interests are sufficiently acknowledged in the copyright sphere. They must liaise with similar organisations in Europe and the UK. Currently the interests of museums are not sufficiently well reflected in copyright law.
* Museums must brief themselves in other relevant areas of intellectual property law such as database law and trade mark protection.
* Museums must manage their licensing activities through effective contracts. They should be particularly careful about protecting digital images. Three members of the Museums Copyright Group (with support from the Museums & Galleries Commission) have written the Guide to Copyright for Museums and Galleries, which includes pro forma contracts for museums. Routledge published the book in May 2000.

Following the report the Museums Copyright Group has obtained an opinion from Jonathan Rayner James QC, a leading copyright specialist, who has no doubt that UK copyright law protects photographs of works of art:

"... as a matter of principle, a photograph of an artistic work can qualify for copyright protection in English law, and that is so irrespective of whether ... the subject of the photographs is more obviously a three dimensional work, such as a sculpture, or is perceived as a two dimensional artistic work, such as a drawing or a painting ..."

Peter Wienand, the Museum Copyright Group's Chairman, and a partner at solicitors Farrer & Co, said:

"… following Bridgeman -v- Corel it is vital that the museum community are clear on where they stand in relation to photographic copyright. While museums will always need to protect themselves contractually, the Report and leading counsel's opinion gives museums the confidence to continue releasing photographs of objects in their collections. This is extremely important news for the sector and will ensure that museums can continue to monitor reproduction quality, protect the integrity of the work, and not least to protect a vital source of income for many museums".

Background

Bridgeman -v- Corel

The Bridgeman Art Library (UK) brought an action against Corel Corporation for breach of copyright in the USA and lost. The crucial issue for museums was whether a photograph of a work of art is an original work and thus protected by copyright law. In the New York Southern District Court, Judge Kaplan, using UK law to reach his first decision, ruled that a photograph of an out-of-copyright artwork is not itself sufficiently original to have copyright protection.

Judge Kaplan was asked to review his decision and following re-argument reached the same conclusion a second time, this time based on American law but again citing British law.

The decision is not binding on courts in the UK, nor is it of overwhelming authority in the USA, but it has caused great concern amongst the museum community which relies on income received from licensing photographic reproductions of objects and works in their collections. Museums are also concerned that unauthorised copying will undermine the quality and integrity of image reproduction.

Given the positions of leading advocates for the organized museum community such as James and Wienand, (Museum Copyright Group's Chairman and partner at Farrer and Co.) I don't see how this matter can possibly be dismissed as any kind of bluff. The matter is existential for the museums. It is appropriate that Coetzee has EFF representing him and this ought to line up as the kind of battle that can best inform the court and result in good authority of the highest order.
I can't wait for the US museums to take the resulting decision back as persuasive argument to attack Bridgeman, which after all is only a trial court decision.

[EricBarbour]

As a commentor on Slashdot said:

One of a couple of things is going to happen as we continue the Digital Revolution. Either we're going to need a global legal system since all this internet stuff is global, or we're going to have to shut down the internet and make it the "countrynet" so that everything you do is contained in the same legal framework.

Or, head, sand, bury.

It would require one of the two things that libertarianistic/Randian/copyleft/blahblah Wikipedia types seem to hate and fear most: either a balkanized internet, or a One World Government. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

And as yet another Slashdot comment says:

No, the better solution is for both groups to compromise. NPG already offered lower-res versions of the same photographs for Wikipedia to use free of charge. I think to retain good-will for all, and not appear to be selfish asstards, Wikipedia should take them up on the offer. The representatives on all sides could then present this as a workable solution to similar future situations without involving courts and lawyers. Everybody wins, including the public.

Don't kid yourself. It won't happen. The High Depopts Of the Wiki-Devolution have by this point become so arrogant and self-serving, that they might even be willing to lose lawsuits and cough up millions (of donation dollars, not from their own pockets) rather than admit they were wrong.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[TungstenCarbide]

Apologies if this has been posted, but an English legal viewpoint on copyright of copies of images in the post Bridgeman era:

http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/bridge.htm

Following a 1999 court decision in the USA challenging the existence of copyright in a photograph of a work of art (The Bridgeman Art Library -v- Corel Corporation 97 Civ.6232 (LAK) New York Southern District Court), the Museums Copyright Group set out to clarify the position for UK museums. The question is of considerable importance to museums. Revenue raised from reproduction fees and licensing is vital to museums to support their primary educational and curatorial objectives. Museums also rely on copyright in photographs of works of art to protect their collections from inaccurate reproduction and captioning. The decision appeared to threaten this position, prompting concern that museum photographs of out-of-copyright works of art would be vulnerable to piracy.

The Museums Copyright Group commissioned an in-depth report on the effect of Bridgeman -v- Corel on the museum sector. This concluded that:

* Bridgeman -v- Corel is not binding in the UK and is of doubtful authority even in the USA. It has not influenced the way museums negotiate or license rights and there have been no serious attempts by commercial users to undermine the position of museums.
* Museums must continue to lobby to ensure that their interests are sufficiently acknowledged in the copyright sphere. They must liaise with similar organisations in Europe and the UK. Currently the interests of museums are not sufficiently well reflected in copyright law.
* Museums must brief themselves in other relevant areas of intellectual property law such as database law and trade mark protection.
* Museums must manage their licensing activities through effective contracts. They should be particularly careful about protecting digital images. Three members of the Museums Copyright Group (with support from the Museums & Galleries Commission) have written the Guide to Copyright for Museums and Galleries, which includes pro forma contracts for museums. Routledge published the book in May 2000.

Following the report the Museums Copyright Group has obtained an opinion from Jonathan Rayner James QC, a leading copyright specialist, who has no doubt that UK copyright law protects photographs of works of art:

"... as a matter of principle, a photograph of an artistic work can qualify for copyright protection in English law, and that is so irrespective of whether ... the subject of the photographs is more obviously a three dimensional work, such as a sculpture, or is perceived as a two dimensional artistic work, such as a drawing or a painting ..."

Peter Wienand, the Museum Copyright Group's Chairman, and a partner at solicitors Farrer & Co, said:

"… following Bridgeman -v- Corel it is vital that the museum community are clear on where they stand in relation to photographic copyright. While museums will always need to protect themselves contractually, the Report and leading counsel's opinion gives museums the confidence to continue releasing photographs of objects in their collections. This is extremely important news for the sector and will ensure that museums can continue to monitor reproduction quality, protect the integrity of the work, and not least to protect a vital source of income for many museums".

Background

Bridgeman -v- Corel

The Bridgeman Art Library (UK) brought an action against Corel Corporation for breach of copyright in the USA and lost. The crucial issue for museums was whether a photograph of a work of art is an original work and thus protected by copyright law. In the New York Southern District Court, Judge Kaplan, using UK law to reach his first decision, ruled that a photograph of an out-of-copyright artwork is not itself sufficiently original to have copyright protection.

Judge Kaplan was asked to review his decision and following re-argument reached the same conclusion a second time, this time based on American law but again citing British law.

The decision is not binding on courts in the UK, nor is it of overwhelming authority in the USA, but it has caused great concern amongst the museum community which relies on income received from licensing photographic reproductions of objects and works in their collections. Museums are also concerned that unauthorised copying will undermine the quality and integrity of image reproduction.

Given the positions of leading advocates for the organized museum community such as James and Wienand, (Museum Copyright Group's Chairman and partner at Farrer and Co.) I don't see how this matter can possibly be dismissed as any kind of bluff. The matter is existential for the museums. It is appropriate that Coetzee has EFF representing him and this ought to line up as the kind of battle that can best inform the court and result in good authority of the highest order.
I can't wait for the US museums to take the resulting decision back as persuasive argument to attack Bridgeman, which after all is only a trail court decision.

Without the Bridgeman precedent, you have the ability engineer new copyrights for public domain art by restricting public access to that art. "Nobody gets to photograph this painting but us, and then we're going to make money on the photograph." That creates a brand new copyright on the painting for the museum, in every way except for one telling difference; the legal heirs to the artist get cut out.

Do you honestly think this is a good idea, GBG?

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[GlassBeadGame]

Without the Bridgeman precedent, you have the ability engineer new copyrights for public domain art by restricting public access to that art. "Nobody gets to photograph this painting but us, and then we're going to make money on the photograph." That creates a brand new copyright on the painting for the museum, in every way, with one telling exception; the legal heirs to the artist get cut out.

Do you honestly think this is a good idea, GBG?

Of course. Although it only creates new copyrights on the photos not the underlying objects of art.The museums who have historically provided access to the public to the best possible means of experiencing the art and cultural artifacts ought to be able to use their ownership of the objects of art to best accomplish their mission. Your approach would (and already has) cause them to further restrict access, such as not posting reasonable low resolution images or by means such as Zoomify to permit higher resolution access while meeting the museum's interests in the objects as resources. You (free culture types) are undermining society's invaluable institution in order to permit precious works of art to be free for use as penis vandalism. It represents a very bad trade-off on the order of magnitude of losing newspapers with investigative capacities in exchange for the blogger's echo-chamber.

My wife is a painter. Her works hang in the homes and places of business of many patrons who know own the works irrespective of the status of any copyright. Do you think you ought to be able to force entry into their homes and offices?

[One]

Without the Bridgeman precedent, you have the ability engineer new copyrights for public domain art by restricting public access to that art. "Nobody gets to photograph this painting but us, and then we're going to make money on the photograph." That creates a brand new copyright on the painting for the museum, in every way except for one telling difference; the legal heirs to the artist get cut out.

Do you honestly think this is a good idea, GBG?

You know, this was not unlike the law in the United States before the 1976 copyright act (which free culture types usually rail against).

Paintings were not considered published, so they were protected by state's common-law copyright, which was typically indefinite--in other words, if you owned a painting that was not previously reproduced, no one else could reproduce that painting, no matter how old it was. According the New York precedent, this distinct first reproduction right was sold along with the painting by default. Pushman v. New York Graphic Soc., Inc., 287 N.Y. 302 (1942). The artist would get paid for the painting, and theoretically also the publication rights therein. If they wanted, they could specifically retain copyright in the sales contract and sell it separately. They haven't been cheated out of anything.

At any rate, earlier photos and reproductions may already themselves be in the public domain.

Bottom line is that such a legal regime is different, but it's hardly barbaric.

This post has been edited by One:

[TungstenCarbide]

Without the Bridgeman precedent, you have the ability engineer new copyrights for public domain art by restricting public access to that art. "Nobody gets to photograph this painting but us, and then we're going to make money on the photograph." That creates a brand new copyright on the painting for the museum, in every way, with one telling exception; the legal heirs to the artist get cut out.

Do you honestly think this is a good idea, GBG?

Of course. Although it only creates new copyrights on the photos not the underlying objects of art.The museums who have historically provided access to the public to the best possible means of experiencing the art and cultural artifacts ought to be able to use their ownership of the objects of art to best accomplish their mission. Your approach would (and already has) cause them to further restrict access, such as not posting reasonable low resolution images or by means such as Zoomify to permit higher resolution access while meeting the museum's interests in the objects as resources. You (free culture types) are undermining society's invaluable institution in order to permit precious works of art to be free for use as penis vandalism. It represents a very bad trade-off on the order of magnitude of losing newspapers with investigative capacities in exchange for the blogger's echo-chamber.

My wife is a painter. Her works hang in the homes and places of business of many patrons who know own the works irrespective of the status of any copyright. Do you think you ought to be able to force entry into their homes and offices?

Of course not. Likewise, if I took a photo of a public domain painting and someone demanded a copy from my digital camera I'd say fuck off.

However, if I uploaded it to the internet and someone copied it I'd have no complaint. Copyrights are, for the most part, intended for creative work. All I did copy.

This isn't a black and white issue, GBG. There are lots of things to consider and weigh. But one thing is clear - with very few exceptions, copyrights expire with time. What the NPG is doing is to engineering a way around this fact in order to make money for themselves, leaving the artists' heirs cut out.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[GlassBeadGame]

Without the Bridgeman precedent, you have the ability engineer new copyrights for public domain art by restricting public access to that art. "Nobody gets to photograph this painting but us, and then we're going to make money on the photograph." That creates a brand new copyright on the painting for the museum, in every way, with one telling exception; the legal heirs to the artist get cut out.

Do you honestly think this is a good idea, GBG?

Of course. Although it only creates new copyrights on the photos not the underlying objects of art.The museums who have historically provided access to the public to the best possible means of experiencing the art and cultural artifacts ought to be able to use their ownership of the objects of art to best accomplish their mission. Your approach would (and already has) cause them to further restrict access, such as not posting reasonable low resolution images or by means such as Zoomify to permit higher resolution access while meeting the museum's interests in the objects as resources. You (free culture types) are undermining society's invaluable institution in order to permit precious works of art to be free for use as penis vandalism. It represents a very bad trade-off on the order of magnitude of losing newspapers with investigative capacities in exchange for the blogger's echo-chamber.

My wife is a painter. Her works hang in the homes and places of business of many patrons who know own the works irrespective of the status of any copyright. Do you think you ought to be able to force entry into their homes and offices?

Of course not. Likewise, if I took a photo of a public domain painting and someone demanded a copy from my digital camera I'd say fuck off.

However, if I uploaded it to the internet and someone copied it I'd have no complaint. Copyrights are, for the most part, intended for creative work. All I did copy.

This isn't a black and white issue, GBG. There are lots of things to consider and weigh. But one thing is clear - with very few exceptions, copyrights expire with time. What the NPG is doing is to engineering a way around this fact in order to make money for themselves, leaving the artists' heirs cut out.

Why would anyone who cares about rewarding creativity give a rat's ass about the parasitic heirs of artist's whom they have never meet? Copyright terms should not be indefinite and are already of (at least) sufficient duration to reward the producers of creative works but museums and culture institutions (as well as private patrons who benefited the artists in their lifetimes) ought to be able to benefit from the ownership of the physical object. The more you restrict the ownership rights the less payment artists will be able to command. Perhaps the heirs of private patrons who own the objects ought to be subject to kind of limitations but this is very hard to work out under a system built on private property and again this might reduce the commission or price an artist could command.

[TungstenCarbide]

Without the Bridgeman precedent, you have the ability engineer new copyrights for public domain art by restricting public access to that art. "Nobody gets to photograph this painting but us, and then we're going to make money on the photograph." That creates a brand new copyright on the painting for the museum, in every way, with one telling exception; the legal heirs to the artist get cut out.

Do you honestly think this is a good idea, GBG?

Of course. Although it only creates new copyrights on the photos not the underlying objects of art.The museums who have historically provided access to the public to the best possible means of experiencing the art and cultural artifacts ought to be able to use their ownership of the objects of art to best accomplish their mission. Your approach would (and already has) cause them to further restrict access, such as not posting reasonable low resolution images or by means such as Zoomify to permit higher resolution access while meeting the museum's interests in the objects as resources. You (free culture types) are undermining society's invaluable institution in order to permit precious works of art to be free for use as penis vandalism. It represents a very bad trade-off on the order of magnitude of losing newspapers with investigative capacities in exchange for the blogger's echo-chamber.

My wife is a painter. Her works hang in the homes and places of business of many patrons who know own the works irrespective of the status of any copyright. Do you think you ought to be able to force entry into their homes and offices?

Of course not. Likewise, if I took a photo of a public domain painting and someone demanded a copy from my digital camera I'd say fuck off.

However, if I uploaded it to the internet and someone copied it I'd have no complaint. Copyrights are, for the most part, intended for creative work. All I did copy.

This isn't a black and white issue, GBG. There are lots of things to consider and weigh. But one thing is clear - with very few exceptions, copyrights expire with time. What the NPG is doing is to engineering a way around this fact in order to make money for themselves, leaving the artists' heirs cut out.

Why would anyone who cares about rewarding creativity give a rat's ass about the parasitic heirs of artist's whom they have never meet? Copyright terms should not be indefinite and are already of (at least) sufficient duration to reward the producers of creative works but museums and culture institutions (as well as private patrons who benefited the artists in their lifetimes) ought to be able to benefit from the ownership of the physical object. The more you restrict the ownership rights the less payment artists will be able to command. Perhaps the heirs of private patrons who own the objects ought to be subject to kind of limitations but this is very hard to work out under a system built on private property and again this might reduce the commission or price an artist could command.

You have an amazing ability to rationalize, GBG. I am quite sure that if the tables were turned, if Wikipedia was in the UK and a user uploaded a picture they took of a PD painting and then tried to license it CC, you'd see things differently. You've already gone as far as attacking the concept of inheritance to prop up your weak arguments - remarkable. What other jewels of wisdom await?

[GlassBeadGame]

Without the Bridgeman precedent, you have the ability engineer new copyrights for public domain art by restricting public access to that art. "Nobody gets to photograph this painting but us, and then we're going to make money on the photograph." That creates a brand new copyright on the painting for the museum, in every way, with one telling exception; the legal heirs to the artist get cut out.

Do you honestly think this is a good idea, GBG?

Of course. Although it only creates new copyrights on the photos not the underlying objects of art.The museums who have historically provided access to the public to the best possible means of experiencing the art and cultural artifacts ought to be able to use their ownership of the objects of art to best accomplish their mission. Your approach would (and already has) cause them to further restrict access, such as not posting reasonable low resolution images or by means such as Zoomify to permit higher resolution access while meeting the museum's interests in the objects as resources. You (free culture types) are undermining society's invaluable institution in order to permit precious works of art to be free for use as penis vandalism. It represents a very bad trade-off on the order of magnitude of losing newspapers with investigative capacities in exchange for the blogger's echo-chamber.

My wife is a painter. Her works hang in the homes and places of business of many patrons who know own the works irrespective of the status of any copyright. Do you think you ought to be able to force entry into their homes and offices?

Of course not. Likewise, if I took a photo of a public domain painting and someone demanded a copy from my digital camera I'd say fuck off.

However, if I uploaded it to the internet and someone copied it I'd have no complaint. Copyrights are, for the most part, intended for creative work. All I did copy.

This isn't a black and white issue, GBG. There are lots of things to consider and weigh. But one thing is clear - with very few exceptions, copyrights expire with time. What the NPG is doing is to engineering a way around this fact in order to make money for themselves, leaving the artists' heirs cut out.

Why would anyone who cares about rewarding creativity give a rat's ass about the parasitic heirs of artist's whom they have never meet? Copyright terms should not be indefinite and are already of (at least) sufficient duration to reward the producers of creative works but museums and culture institutions (as well as private patrons who benefited the artists in their lifetimes) ought to be able to benefit from the ownership of the physical object. The more you restrict the ownership rights the less payment artists will be able to command. Perhaps the heirs of private patrons who own the objects ought to be subject to kind of limitations but this is very hard to work out under a system built on private property and again this might reduce the commission or price an artist could command.

You have an amazing ability to rationalize, GBG. I am quite sure that if the tables were turned, if Wikipedia was in the UK and a user uploaded a picture they took of a PD painting and then tried to license it CC, you'd see things differently. You've already gone as far as attacking the concept of inheritance to prop up your weak arguments - remarkable. What other jewels of wisdom await?

I didn't "drag in inheritance" at all. I responded to your conveniently "victimized heirs" argument. All anyone need to do to see this is read the thread. I am at a loss about your your "turned tables argument." I care about public institutions that WP undermines. Nationality doesn't enter into it as far as I'm concerned. You know I'm American, right?

[TungstenCarbide]

I didn't "drag in inheritance" at all. I responded to your conveniently "victimized heirs" argument. All anyone need to do to see this is read the thread. I am at a loss about your your "turned tables argument." I care about public institutions that WP undermines. Nationality doesn't enter into it as far as I'm concerned. You know I'm American, right?

You misunderstand. I think you'd take almost any side against Wikipedia.

[One]

I think he's just saying that photography copyrights can create beneficial incentives for archival institutions. There are no bizarre contortions in this argument, and I'm saying that as a pro-Wikipedian.

It doesn't take an anti-Wikipedia bomb thrower to agree the "benefiting the heirs" should be of no more importance to copyright than any other form property. If anything, we should be happy that the artist was more likely to sell and enjoy it in his or her own lifetime.

[GlassBeadGame]

I didn't "drag in inheritance" at all. I responded to your conveniently "victimized heirs" argument. All anyone need to do to see this is read the thread. I am at a loss about your your "turned tables argument." I care about public institutions that WP undermines. Nationality doesn't enter into it as far as I'm concerned. You know I'm American, right?

You misunderstand. I think you'd take almost any side against Wikipedia.

My participation in this forum in an exercise in my advocacy for a point of view that is decidedly anti-Wikipedian. My writing is unabashedly partisan in nature. Despite this I don't take up arguments I don't really agree with. At times I might "think out loud" through an argument that later I disregard because it doesn't pan out, but I'm never insincere. Sometimes I might engage in candor and graciously point out weaknesses in my own arguments but I feel no obligation to do so. You seem just plain bad at this kind of thing.

[TungstenCarbide]

I think he's just saying that photography copyrights can create beneficial incentives for archival institutions. There are no bizarre contortions in this argument, and I'm saying that as a pro-Wikipedian...

Actually there are bizarre contortions; the NPG is parlaying a combination of physical control, restriction of public access and photography to finagle new copyrights (for themselves) on public domain art.

That being said, I think it wonderful for a public gallery to make some money to further their curating, just not at the expense of the spirit of copyright law and public access.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Moulton]

This case reveals that the two corners of the law (yes, it's two, not four corners) are somewhat arbitrary and can vary from one jurisdiction to the next. In the absence of international treaties to establish uniformity in copyright law, cases like this are fundamentally irreconcilable within the scope of the law.

A better standard would be ethics, but (as we all know) Wikipedia is hardly an outpost of ethical practices.

And so we arrive at yet another case of burbling, festering drama that will drag on for years, relentlessly corroding and dispiriting all parties.

[Somey]

That being said, I think it wonderful for a public gallery to make some money to further their curating, just not at the expense of the spirit of copyright law and public access.

I'm not so sure you do, actually... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

I'm sure this has already been pointed out, but the NPG didn't have to photograph all those paintings, and they didn't have to upload them in high-res to their website. They did that in the name of, as you say, "public access," and they presumably hoped it would help promote the museum as well. All they asked was for Wikipedia to link to their site on the same page on which the images were displayed - a perfectly reasonable request, one that most website creators will honor without even being asked - but Wikipedia would not do this. That's putting aside the fact that WP didn't need high-res images to illustrate their articles in the first place...

In retrospect, sure, it would have been better if the NPG had been more cognizant of what Wikipedia was likely to do, particularly given that it wasn't illegal in the USA. They probably wouldn't have uploaded the high-res versions at all, and they might have placed "watermarks" on the versions they did upload, like other non-free image sites do. That would have been unfortunate, but as long as Wikipedia exists, what other choice would they have had other than to do what they did and thereby get hosed?

[TungstenCarbide]

That being said, I think it wonderful for a public gallery to make some money to further their curating, just not at the expense of the spirit of copyright law and public access.

I'm not so sure you do, actually... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

I'm sure this has already been pointed out, but the NPG didn't have to photograph all those paintings, and they didn't have to upload them in high-res to their website. They did that in the name of, as you say, "public access," and they presumably hoped it would help promote the museum as well. All they asked was for Wikipedia to link to their site on the same page on which the images were displayed - a perfectly reasonable request, one that most website creators will honor without even being asked - but Wikipedia would not do this. That's putting aside the fact that WP didn't need high-res images to illustrate their articles in the first place...

In retrospect, sure, it would have been better if the NPG had been more cognizant of what Wikipedia was likely to do, particularly given that it wasn't illegal in the USA. They probably wouldn't have uploaded the high-res versions at all, and they might have placed "watermarks" on the versions they did upload, like other non-free image sites do. That would have been unfortunate, but as long as Wikipedia exists, what other choice would they have had other than to do what they did and thereby get hosed?

Everything you said, Somey, makes perfect sense for a museum that owns copyright on the paintings.

Your cooda/wooda/shooda argument goes both ways. The museum could have allowed the public the right to copy PD paintings. Then they could have sold high resolution images and left medium resolution ones on line. If their copy work is as important and superb as they say then it would still bring a fine price, wouldn't it, regardless of the availability of public photos. They should have tried to talk to the Office - I'm sure with a little patience a bot could have plastered links all over the place. And so on.

what other choice would they have had

How about acknowledge one has the right to copy works when copy rights expire.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Somey]

Everything you said, Somey, makes perfect sense for a museum that owns copyright on the paintings.

It sounds like we're back to Square One on this argument, then. So are you saying that it's unreasonable for a museum that maintains (i.e., curates) paintings to insist that their website is linked to on WP pages on which the images they originally provided to them (deliberately or not) are displayed?

Bear in mind that the cost of providing such links is effectively zero, whereas the cost of providing the images was, like, thousands and thousands of pounds. I just can't think of a decent argument for not setting up the links as they requested - in fact, the only shitty argument I can think of is "they're hard to maintain," or maybe "we have to be consistent for every museum in existence."

[TungstenCarbide]

Everything you said, Somey, makes perfect sense for a museum that owns copyright on the paintings.

It sounds like we're back to Square One on this argument, then. So are you saying that it's unreasonable for a museum that maintains (i.e., curates) paintings to insist that their website is linked to on WP pages on which the images they originally provided to them (deliberately or not) are displayed?

Bear in mind that the cost of providing such links is effectively zero, whereas the cost of providing the images was, like, thousands and thousands of pounds. I just can't think of a decent argument for not setting up the links as they requested - in fact, the only shitty argument I can think of is "they're hard to maintain," or maybe "we have to be consistent for every museum in existence."

Of course adding links is the decent thing to do. But this is Wikipedia we are talking about, staffed by marshmallow stuffed lard asses who enjoy blocking the projects' best editors.

(PS, I edited my previous before I noticed yours)

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[dtobias]

Everything you said, Somey, makes perfect sense for a museum that owns copyright on the paintings.

It sounds like we're back to Square One on this argument, then. So are you saying that it's unreasonable for a museum that maintains (i.e., curates) paintings to insist that their website is linked to on WP pages on which the images they originally provided to them (deliberately or not) are displayed?

Bear in mind that the cost of providing such links is effectively zero, whereas the cost of providing the images was, like, thousands and thousands of pounds. I just can't think of a decent argument for not setting up the links as they requested - in fact, the only shitty argument I can think of is "they're hard to maintain," or maybe "we have to be consistent for every museum in existence."

Actually, the image pages involved, such as this one, do include a link to the source. Sorry to let facts get in the way of a good anti-WP rant.

----------------
Now playing: Meat Loaf - Two Out Of Three Ain't Bad
via FoxyTunes

[Moulton]

This is Wikipedia we are talking about, staffed by marshmallow stuffed lard asses who enjoy blocking the projects' best editors.

Perhaps NPG could curate a high-res painting of a marshmallow-stuffed lard ass editing Wikipedia.