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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l