Please also look at
As I understand our current policy the deletion request is indeed justified.
If we decide to change policy that will of course be another matter. But as
Historiograf (who seems to be the Klaus Graf of the forwarded email) pointed
out nicely I'm apparently incompetent in this domain.
Marc aka Caran...
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of David Gerard
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:42 PM
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List
Subject: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] At least 500 images will have to
bedeleted from the National Portrait Gallery
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Klaus Graf <klausgraf(a)googlemail.com>
Subject: [Foundation-l] At least 500 images will have to be deleted
from the National Portrait Gallery
The following was never revoced in this list:
"[W]e've consistently held that faithful reproductions of
two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than
reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing
Erik Moeller at
May I also remember Jimbo Wales' Manifesto:
"5. Free the Art!
Show two 400 year old paintings. Routinely get complaints from
museums saying there is copyright infringements. National Portrait
Gallery of England threatens to sue, a chilling effect, but they have
For years there was no doubt that Bridgeman v. Corel was accepted on
Commons. It is said that British courts would'nt accept Bridgeman v.
Corel but there is no proof for this. It is true, in the contrary,
that the NY US judge has diligently discussed UK law with the result
that also according UK copyright law mere reproductions are NOT
Bridgeman vs. Corel is an essential point for Commons and for all
Wikimedia projects. This is not an issue some Commons pseudo-experts
could decide. Before 500+ pictures of PUBLIC DOMAIN PAINTINGS are to
be deleted the board of the Foundation should decide if Moeller's
quote above is still its position.
foundation-l mailing list
Commons-l mailing list