IANAL, but I don't think I need to be to say the "The Foundation" is not in legal jeopardy here unless it chooses to be. It's protected by a four-thousand-mile moat, a war of independence, several layers of legal code and a US Supreme Court decision. It doesn't have any assets in the UK as far as I'm aware; there is absolutely nothing a UK court could punish them with. That's not the same as saying that a UK court case couldn't result in a judgment that was disadvantageous to the Foundation. For instance, I *believe* from the same set of legal issues as those surrounding peer-to-peer filesharing, that if the images were unequivocally found to be copyright violations in the UK, then any UK reader or editor who accessed them could be exposed to some sort of legal nastiness.

I agree that any comment, however informal, from someone who *is* an English lawyer, would be very useful.

--HM

"peter boelens" pboel@xs4all.nl wrote in message news:CF6DC9A6B75E4D7583CCDCA394FC6AA6@cc1070822a...

I probably missed a few posts, but the way this is going raises some serious questions. It would be helpfull if someone with good knowledge of English Law would explain the risks of going trough the English Courts. I am a lawyer, but not an English one. What I do know of the English Legal system is that losing a lawsuit there is a very expensive excercise. And if this thing goes to court there is a real chance that the Foundation will loose. So a deal with NPG would be the sensible thing, and if a deal is not possible deleting seems the better option. Peter b.

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l