2009/7/11 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
It gets better: the editor they sent the threat to is an American. So, to recap: A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over what is unambiguously, in established US law, not a copyright violation of any sort. I can't see this ending well for the NPG.
In fact, the more legal success they have with this approach (and they do have a plausible cause in the UK, if they throw enough money at arguing so), the more *utterly radioactive* the publicity for them will be.
I’ll be calling the NPG first thing Monday (in my capacity as “just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics”) to establish just what they think they’re doing here. Other WMF bloggers and, if interested, journalists may wish to do the same, to establish what their consistent response is.
- d.
I sent out a press release earlier today to newspapers in Norway. It was sent to around 200 recipients. Perhaps others could do the same thing.
John
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/11 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
It gets better: the editor they sent the threat to is an American. So, to recap: A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over what is unambiguously, in established US law, not a copyright violation of any sort. I can't see this ending well for the NPG.
In fact, the more legal success they have with this approach (and they do have a plausible cause in the UK, if they throw enough money at arguing so), the more *utterly radioactive* the publicity for them will be.
I’ll be calling the NPG first thing Monday (in my capacity as “just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics”) to establish just what they think they’re doing here. Other WMF bloggers and, if interested, journalists may wish to do the same, to establish what their consistent response is.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11/07/2009, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
I sent out a press release earlier today to newspapers in Norway. It was sent to around 200 recipients. Perhaps others could do the same thing.
Before doing this, it may be an idea to run prospective press releases past Jay and Mike. (jwalsh@wikimedia.org and mgodwin@wikimedia.org).
John, if you could forward Jay and Mike a copy of your press release, and possibly a translation into English, that would I think be of help to them :-)
- d.
This is public and has been so since the first posting. The press release was just a reference of whats going on at Wikimedia Commons, the specific user page describing the case and this mailing list. It is sent out through the mailing list for Wikimedia Norway and it is not a statement on the behalf of Wikimedia Foundation or anybody else.
If someone feel they should not be quoted on what they write on this mailing list they should probably not write it at all as this list is public. This seems to be a real problem as people tend to believe that they write something for me, myself and us two, while the rest of the world infact can read it at will.
John
David Gerard wrote:
On 11/07/2009, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
I sent out a press release earlier today to newspapers in Norway. It was sent to around 200 recipients. Perhaps others could do the same thing.
Before doing this, it may be an idea to run prospective press releases past Jay and Mike. (jwalsh@wikimedia.org and mgodwin@wikimedia.org).
John, if you could forward Jay and Mike a copy of your press release, and possibly a translation into English, that would I think be of help to them :-)
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Lets finish up the press releases and drop this thread. NPG can read it too. Has a US press release been sent out?
________________________________ From: John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:12:14 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National Portrait Gallery ...
This is public and has been so since the first posting. The press release was just a reference of whats going on at Wikimedia Commons, the specific user page describing the case and this mailing list. It is sent out through the mailing list for Wikimedia Norway and it is not a statement on the behalf of Wikimedia Foundation or anybody else.
If someone feel they should not be quoted on what they write on this mailing list they should probably not write it at all as this list is public. This seems to be a real problem as people tend to believe that they write something for me, myself and us two, while the rest of the world infact can read it at will.
John
David Gerard wrote:
On 11/07/2009, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
I sent out a press release earlier today to newspapers in Norway. It was sent to around 200 recipients. Perhaps others could do the same thing.
Before doing this, it may be an idea to run prospective press releases past Jay and Mike. (jwalsh@wikimedia.org and mgodwin@wikimedia.org).
John, if you could forward Jay and Mike a copy of your press release, and possibly a translation into English, that would I think be of help to them :-)
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/7/11 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com:
Lets finish up the press releases and drop this thread. NPG can read it too. Has a US press release been sent out?
I doubt it. The WMF handles US press releases and they aren't stupid enough to talk to the press until they know what they're talking about.
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Lets finish up the press releases and drop this thread. NPG can read it too. Has a US press release been sent out?
There's no problem with keeping this thread going, as long as we don't pretend that there is anything official about the comments. Keeping the debate public serves the politics of the situation. It keeps eyes on an issue that's way off the radar for most people.
Ec
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Lets finish up the press releases and drop this thread. NPG can read it too. Has a US press release been sent out?
There's no problem with keeping this thread going, as long as we don't pretend that there is anything official about the comments. Keeping the debate public serves the politics of the situation. It keeps eyes on an issue that's way off the radar for most people.
As long as we stick to abstract discussions of legal theory, I see no problem with this thread. Anything else is of questionable wisdom. You don't discuss legal strategy in public without thinking it through very carefully and while none of us actually have a say in the legal strategy it still isn't wise for us to publicly speculate.
2009/7/11 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no:
This is public and has been so since the first posting. The press release was just a reference of whats going on at Wikimedia Commons, the specific user page describing the case and this mailing list. It is sent out through the mailing list for Wikimedia Norway and it is not a statement on the behalf of Wikimedia Foundation or anybody else.
Handling the press isn't a simple matter of giving them the facts, you have to work out what it is you want from them first and you have no idea what Derrick wants from the press.
John at Darkstar wrote:
This is public and has been so since the first posting. The press release was just a reference of whats going on at Wikimedia Commons, the specific user page describing the case and this mailing list. It is sent out through the mailing list for Wikimedia Norway and it is not a statement on the behalf of Wikimedia Foundation or anybody else.
If someone feel they should not be quoted on what they write on this mailing list they should probably not write it at all as this list is public. This seems to be a real problem as people tend to believe that they write something for me, myself and us two, while the rest of the world infact can read it at will.
The problem here seems with the term "press release", which suggests some kind of official status. There is nothing official about a mailing list discussion, or even about the choice by the threatened individual to make the lawyer's letter public.
Ec
2009/7/11 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no:
I sent out a press release earlier today to newspapers in Norway. It was sent to around 200 recipients. Perhaps others could do the same thing.
Please, nobody else take unilateral action. You're not the one being sued, it isn't your call.
This was public as soon as it got posted on Wikimedia Commons. The press notice is on our Signpost. http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tinget#Brukere_p.C3.A5_Wikimedia_Comm...
John
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/7/11 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no:
I sent out a press release earlier today to newspapers in Norway. It was sent to around 200 recipients. Perhaps others could do the same thing.
Please, nobody else take unilateral action. You're not the one being sued, it isn't your call.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/7/11 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no:
I sent out a press release earlier today to newspapers in Norway. It was sent to around 200 recipients. Perhaps others could do the same thing.
Please, nobody else take unilateral action. You're not the one being sued, it isn't your call.
Legally at the moment no one is being sued. Additionally none of the actions being carried out would be in contempt of court even if there was an ongoing case at this point.
2009/7/11 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/7/11 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no:
I sent out a press release earlier today to newspapers in Norway. It was sent to around 200 recipients. Perhaps others could do the same thing.
Please, nobody else take unilateral action. You're not the one being sued, it isn't your call.
Legally at the moment no one is being sued. Additionally none of the actions being carried out would be in contempt of court even if there was an ongoing case at this point.
I'm not talking about legalities, I'm talking about responsible behaviour. The NPG may well be willing to reach a reasonable settlement but they are less likely to do so if Wikimedians have been speaking ill of them in the popular press. You don't know if Derrick wants to fight this or not.
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/7/11 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/7/11 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no:
I sent out a press release earlier today to newspapers in Norway. It was sent to around 200 recipients. Perhaps others could do the same thing.
Please, nobody else take unilateral action. You're not the one being sued, it isn't your call.
Legally at the moment no one is being sued. Additionally none of the actions being carried out would be in contempt of court even if there was an ongoing case at this point.
I'm not talking about legalities, I'm talking about responsible behaviour. The NPG may well be willing to reach a reasonable settlement but they are less likely to do so if Wikimedians have been speaking ill of them in the popular press. You don't know if Derrick wants to fight this or not.
The case is under English and welsh law. For solid legal reasons the NPG will be willing to make a reasonable settlement.
Since we know that the NPG are not completely stupid and English law in any case lacks statutory damages it would seem to be somewhat improbable that any course of action we can take can make them insist on an unreasonable settlement.
2009/7/11 geni geniice@gmail.com:
The case is under English and welsh law. For solid legal reasons the NPG will be willing to make a reasonable settlement.
Since we know that the NPG are not completely stupid and English law in any case lacks statutory damages it would seem to be somewhat improbable that any course of action we can take can make them insist on an unreasonable settlement.
You can't know that and it's not your place to guess. Just stay out of it unless Derrick asks for your help.
Perhaps everybody should take that advice. I find it mildly amusing that suddenly we have a list full of legal experts. Can we let those relevant people do what the will now and stop speculating/guessing/etc. here and elsewhere?
--- Rjd0060 rjd0060.wiki@gmail.com
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/7/11 geni geniice@gmail.com:
The case is under English and welsh law. For solid legal reasons the NPG will be willing to make a reasonable settlement.
Since we know that the NPG are not completely stupid and English law in any case lacks statutory damages it would seem to be somewhat improbable that any course of action we can take can make them insist on an unreasonable settlement.
You can't know that and it's not your place to guess. Just stay out of it unless Derrick asks for your help.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Seconded.
On 11/07/2009 19:52, Rjd0060 wrote:
Perhaps everybody should take that advice. I find it mildly amusing that suddenly we have a list full of legal experts. Can we let those relevant people do what the will now and stop speculating/guessing/etc. here and elsewhere?
Rjd0060 rjd0060.wiki@gmail.com
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/7/11 genigeniice@gmail.com:
The case is under English and welsh law. For solid legal reasons the NPG will be willing to make a reasonable settlement.
Since we know that the NPG are not completely stupid and English law in any case lacks statutory damages it would seem to be somewhat improbable that any course of action we can take can make them insist on an unreasonable settlement.
You can't know that and it's not your place to guess. Just stay out of it unless Derrick asks for your help.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/7/11 geni geniice@gmail.com:
The case is under English and welsh law. For solid legal reasons the NPG will be willing to make a reasonable settlement.
Since we know that the NPG are not completely stupid and English law in any case lacks statutory damages it would seem to be somewhat improbable that any course of action we can take can make them insist on an unreasonable settlement.
You can't know that and it's not your place to guess. Just stay out of it unless Derrick asks for your help.
He did choose to make the letter public.
Ec
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/7/11 geni geniice@gmail.com:
The case is under English and welsh law. For solid legal reasons the NPG will be willing to make a reasonable settlement.
Since we know that the NPG are not completely stupid and English law in any case lacks statutory damages it would seem to be somewhat improbable that any course of action we can take can make them insist on an unreasonable settlement.
You can't know that and it's not your place to guess. Just stay out of it unless Derrick asks for your help.
He did choose to make the letter public.
How is that relevant?
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/7/11 geni geniice@gmail.com:
The case is under English and welsh law. For solid legal reasons the NPG will be willing to make a reasonable settlement.
Since we know that the NPG are not completely stupid and English law in any case lacks statutory damages it would seem to be somewhat improbable that any course of action we can take can make them insist on an unreasonable settlement.
You can't know that and it's not your place to guess. Just stay out of it unless Derrick asks for your help.
He did choose to make the letter public.
How is that relevant?
If he didn't want public comments he would not have made the letter public; he might have chosen more private WMF channels.
Ec
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
If he didn't want public comments he would not have made the letter public; he might have chosen more private WMF channels.
Do you know that he sought legal advice before publishing the letter? If he didn't, then is may not have been an informed choice. If he's made a strategic mistake by publishing the letter and not keeping control of the PR then we shouldn't aggravate that unnecessarily.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
If he didn't want public comments he would not have made the letter public; he might have chosen more private WMF channels.
Do you know that he sought legal advice before publishing the letter? If he didn't, then is may not have been an informed choice. If he's made a strategic mistake by publishing the letter and not keeping control of the PR then we shouldn't aggravate that unnecessarily.
ROTFL. He published it; that's a fact. It would be very rare indeed for anyone to have sought legal advice before making online comments. The NPG site, like many others, has a link to its terms of service. How often does *anyone* who uses such sites ever get legal advice before proceeding? Some of these require you to agree that you understand the terms; that's about like agreeing that pigs can fly. Some ask you to accept the jurisdiction of the courts in the site's home country; does that really override inalienable rights in one's own country? Is the legal profession in any position to provide valid legal advice at reasonable cost to every situation that might be affected?
If in retrospect, publishing the letter is seen as a strategic mistake, it can't be unpublished. There are arguments available for it being a strategic positive.
Ec
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote: [snip]
If in retrospect, publishing the letter is seen as a strategic mistake, it can't be unpublished. There are arguments available for it being a strategic positive.
One argument for it being a mistake is that the early disclosure has diminished his supporters ability to shape the public debate.
There are some relevant pieces of information that would influence people's opinions, things like that the NPG previously complaining about low resolution photographs and photographs taken by the uploaders. (I haven't gone and tried to find examples from the latter from the NPG, but UK museums have routinely tried to assert copyright over photographs taken by commons contributors).
The real interesting story here is that museums all over the over the world believe that holding the physical good gives them unlimited rights to regulate all uses of copies and even rights to regulate discussions of those works, and that they are now beginning to partner with commercial service providers seeking to monetize that control and becoming litigious as a result. In the end the public's access to the works shrinks, the public domain is eroded, and the lie is put to the lofty claims of education, promotion, and preservation included in the grant requests and mission statements of museums.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote: [snip]
If in retrospect, publishing the letter is seen as a strategic mistake, it can't be unpublished. There are arguments available for it being a strategic positive.
One argument for it being a mistake is that the early disclosure has diminished his supporters ability to shape the public debate.
Yes and no. Shaping public debate implies a certain degree of control over this shape. That does have a dark side if there is no prior understanding about where that public debate should be going. Wide publicity may help fundraising for legal costs if things ever get that far.
There are some relevant pieces of information that would influence people's opinions, things like that the NPG previously complaining about low resolution photographs and photographs taken by the uploaders. (I haven't gone and tried to find examples from the latter from the NPG, but UK museums have routinely tried to assert copyright over photographs taken by commons contributors).
If they were previously complaining about low res photos, but are now offering them as some kind of offer in compromise, there is room there for positive movement. Others might see this as a sign of weakness in their position. It's up to WMF to accept or not. The question then becomes whether there is more to be gained from a satisfactory median resolution, or an all out victory that opens up the possibility of a loss.
The real interesting story here is that museums all over the over the world believe that holding the physical good gives them unlimited rights to regulate all uses of copies and even rights to regulate discussions of those works, and that they are now beginning to partner with commercial service providers seeking to monetize that control and becoming litigious as a result. In the end the public's access to the works shrinks, the public domain is eroded, and the lie is put to the lofty claims of education, promotion, and preservation included in the grant requests and mission statements of museums.
Agreed, and it goes beyond just museums. Film makers, record producers, newspapers ... all are finding the economic models that sustained them before the internet age are collapsing. Kuhn said that a paradigm shift would have victims. If NPG wins it case that situation won't be changed by such a blip. We can probably agree that museums and other cultural institutions are valuable assets to a society, and we can probably agree that there are costs connected with maintaining those assets. It's also evident that the informational value of each artifact is unique, and the artifact is not multiplied to accommodate growing demand. Accepting low resolution images may be a stepping stone to greater co-operation in the future. Beyond that it becomes a need for cultural institutions to recognize that they need the volunteer sector or risk pricing themselves out of the market trying to meet the increasingly sophisticated demands of the online communities. They will still need funding, but that funding is not without limits. The funders live in a real world where there are many other funding demands.
Ec
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
ROTFL. He published it; that's a fact. It would be very rare indeed for anyone to have sought legal advice before making online comments. The NPG site, like many others, has a link to its terms of service. How often does *anyone* who uses such sites ever get legal advice before proceeding? Some of these require you to agree that you understand the terms; that's about like agreeing that pigs can fly. Some ask you to accept the jurisdiction of the courts in the site's home country; does that really override inalienable rights in one's own country? Is the legal profession in any position to provide valid legal advice at reasonable cost to every situation that might be affected?
If in retrospect, publishing the letter is seen as a strategic mistake, it can't be unpublished. There are arguments available for it being a strategic positive.
This is not a laughing matter. It doesn't matter what the legal merits are or what is a good strategy, the fact remains that you don't know what you are talking about and it has nothing to do with you, so just shut up.
Could we close this thread? It is proving entirely unproductive and potentially harmful.
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
If he didn't want public comments he would not have made the letter public; he might have chosen more private WMF channels.
Thomas Dalton replied:
Do you know that he sought legal advice before publishing the letter? If he didn't, then is may not have been an informed choice. If he's made a strategic mistake by publishing the letter and not keeping control of the PR then we shouldn't aggravate that unnecessarily.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
ROTFL. He published it; that's a fact. It would be very rare indeed for anyone to have sought legal advice before making online comments. The NPG site, like many others, has a link to its terms of service. How often does *anyone* who uses such sites ever get legal advice before proceeding? Some of these require you to agree that you understand the terms; that's about like agreeing that pigs can fly. Some ask you to accept the jurisdiction of the courts in the site's home country; does that really override inalienable rights in one's own country? Is the legal profession in any position to provide valid legal advice at reasonable cost to every situation that might be affected?
If in retrospect, publishing the letter is seen as a strategic mistake, it can't be unpublished. There are arguments available for it being a strategic positive.
This is not a laughing matter. It doesn't matter what the legal merits are or what is a good strategy, the fact remains that you don't know what you are talking about and it has nothing to do with you, so just shut up.
Could we close this thread? It is proving entirely unproductive and potentially harmful.
I've restored the comments that I was replying to since you deleted them to wilfully mischaracterize my "ROTFL" as applying to the general issue rather than your silly comments.
I've yet to see any evidence that you know what you are talking about. Your opposition to any kind of free speech on this by making up stories about potential harm prove this. Just because your contributions are entirely unproductive doesn't mean that this applies to what many others are saying. I may not agree with all of them, but I would not find that sufficient reason to suppress them.
Ec
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
I've restored the comments that I was replying to since you deleted them to wilfully mischaracterize my "ROTFL" as applying to the general issue rather than your silly comments.
I've yet to see any evidence that you know what you are talking about. Your opposition to any kind of free speech on this by making up stories about potential harm prove this. Just because your contributions are entirely unproductive doesn't mean that this applies to what many others are saying. I may not agree with all of them, but I would not find that sufficient reason to suppress them.
Would I be right in assuming that you are American? You certainly have that religious view of free speech that is typical of Americans... This has nothing to do with suppression of free speech, it has to do with being responsible about what you say. I am not a legal expert and I have no spoken to Derrick about his wishes, which is why I am being very careful about what I say and do. All I am asking is that other people in the same position show the same restraint.
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Would I be right in assuming that you are American? You certainly have that religious view of free speech that is typical of Americans... This has nothing to do with suppression of free speech, it has to do with being responsible about what you say. I am not a legal expert and I have no spoken to Derrick about his wishes, which is why I am being very careful about what I say and do. All I am asking is that other people in the same position show the same restraint.
The problem is that this is an issue that affects all of us, not just Derrick - which is presumably (I haven't heard anything from him on this issue other than the publication of the threat letter) why his immediate response was to publish the letter.
(When I've gotten threat letters over the internet, my immediate response has been to publish them in full, then publish the letter upset that I published the first letter. I do realise not everyone is like me, thankfully.)
This affects all of us, so is all of our business.
On one end, an encroachement on the public domain being enforced by a threat letter from seriously expensive lawyers - that's flatly unconscionable and unacceptable to many.
On the other, people who are presently working with museums to get them to release their collections under a suitable free content licence by the "ask nicely" method - GLAM-WIKI is real soon, for example. This fouls up their work too - the hordes of pissed-off pitchfork-wielding nerds make a lot of unehlpful noise, and also the NPG setting a pathological example to other museums (meaning a bad outcome for the NPG may be *required* to demonstrate this is a bad idea). Both make this letter from the NPG *really badly timed*. But then, we didn't set the timing.
(I wonder if they realised sending the letter on a Friday would give everyone the whole weekend to get pissed off and work out our next step.)
So yeah, messing things up for Derrick would be bad. But a discussion is on-topic and *important*, because this matter affects everyone here.
- d.
2009/7/11 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Would I be right in assuming that you are American? You certainly have that religious view of free speech that is typical of Americans... This has nothing to do with suppression of free speech, it has to do with being responsible about what you say. I am not a legal expert and I have no spoken to Derrick about his wishes, which is why I am being very careful about what I say and do. All I am asking is that other people in the same position show the same restraint.
The problem is that this is an issue that affects all of us, not just Derrick - which is presumably (I haven't heard anything from him on this issue other than the publication of the threat letter) why his immediate response was to publish the letter.
It affects our hobby, it affects his life. I think he interests take precedence.
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Would I be right in assuming that you are American? You certainly have
Oh, and Ray is Canadian ;-p
(I had people in the Slashdot thread assuming I was American despite the davidgerard.co.uk domain ...)
- d.
2009/7/11 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Would I be right in assuming that you are American? You certainly have
Oh, and Ray is Canadian ;-p
He should know better, then.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
I've restored the comments that I was replying to since you deleted them to wilfully mischaracterize my "ROTFL" as applying to the general issue rather than your silly comments.
I've yet to see any evidence that you know what you are talking about. Your opposition to any kind of free speech on this by making up stories about potential harm prove this. Just because your contributions are entirely unproductive doesn't mean that this applies to what many others are saying. I may not agree with all of them, but I would not find that sufficient reason to suppress them.
Would I be right in assuming that you are American? You certainly have that religious view of free speech that is typical of Americans... This has nothing to do with suppression of free speech, it has to do with being responsible about what you say. I am not a legal expert and I have no spoken to Derrick about his wishes, which is why I am being very careful about what I say and do. All I am asking is that other people in the same position show the same restraint.
I'm Canadian, which means that I am familiar with the American propaganda on some of these matters, though I can be equally critical of Americans in other areas, or, in the sense of [[John Ralston Saul]], I have learned to live with such complexities that are a part of the Canadian collective unconscious. Under the circumstances your misperception is understandable and forgivable.
I have no complaint about your caution and restraint; I support that. There is ample reason to support the notion that Derrick's publication of that letter was unwise, but too, there are positive elements to that publication in that it opens up the conversation in much larger terms. The underlying issues inherent in NPG's attitudes have wider implications. It is unfortunate that they often cannot be resolved outside of a specific legal case against a specific individual. Nothing that you, I, other list members or the denizens of Slashdot can say will have a direct effect on NPG v. Derrick if that ever becomes a real legal case. Both sides will probably be advised by their own counsels to make no further public statements. Those in a position to speak on behalf of WMF are also wise to severely limit their comments.
Before answering this I responded to comments by Gregory Maxwell, and the topics raised in that exchange by both sides.are probably the most constructive direction that this thread could take.
Ec
For what it's worth - it's on slashdot now, so it presumably is about to make its rounds through other press as well.
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
You can't know that and it's not your place to guess. Just stay out of it unless Derrick asks for your help.
I think we can safely assume that the NPG it is not going to follow a legal strategy that gives them a significant risk of facing millions in legal bills. Due to the conventions of English law it is generally unwise to overplay your hand when requesting damages.
As to staying out of it. As a private subject I'm pretty much free to do whatever I like for the pretty obvious reason that if that was not the case you would provide a great weapon for those wishing to cause further problems for those threatened with lawsuits.
2009/7/11 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
You can't know that and it's not your place to guess. Just stay out of it unless Derrick asks for your help.
I think we can safely assume that the NPG it is not going to follow a legal strategy that gives them a significant risk of facing millions in legal bills. Due to the conventions of English law it is generally unwise to overplay your hand when requesting damages.
As to staying out of it. As a private subject I'm pretty much free to do whatever I like for the pretty obvious reason that if that was not the case you would provide a great weapon for those wishing to cause further problems for those threatened with lawsuits.
You are free to do a great many things, that doesn't mean it is a good idea to actually do them.
Why are these images on Commons? According to [[Commons:Licensing]]: "Wikimedia Commons accepts only media [...] that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." Is it because they are potentially PD in the UK, but it's unclear?
--Falcorian
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Falcorianalex.public.account+WikimediaMailingList@gmail.com wrote:
Why are these images on Commons? According to [[Commons:Licensing]]: "Wikimedia Commons accepts only media [...] that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." Is it because they are potentially PD in the UK, but it's unclear?
See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag/Straw_P...
Especially the introductory comments. This has been handled as a special case.
-Robert Rohde
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Falcorianalex.public.account+WikimediaMailingList@gmail.com wrote:
Why are these images on Commons? According to [[Commons:Licensing]]: "Wikimedia Commons accepts only media [...] that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." Is it because they are potentially PD in the UK, but it's unclear?
Wikimedia's long standing position is that if copying a public domain work makes it copyrighted it would effectively eliminate the public domain.
It's far from clear that the NPG's position will stand even under UK law: The specific matter hasn't been tried, and the US court that tried it also reached the same conclusion under UK law.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Why_do_...
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!
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
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:
- Obtain classic works of art and slavishly digitize them.
- Destroy the works of art
- Perpetual profit!
Come now, let's not exaggerate. The profit would not be perpetual. You'd have to take additional steps to pull that off. In about 95 years (depending on the applicable copyright term), you'd need to slavishly copy the works of art a second time, into whatever the universal format of choice ends up being by then, and destroy the original copy lest it fall into the public domain. Also, ensure that all licenses to use that first copy expire at this time and require destruction of all outstanding versions. Then you can have everybody re-up for another round.
--Michael Snow
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Michael Snowwikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
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:
- Obtain classic works of art and slavishly digitize them.
- Destroy the works of art
- Perpetual profit!
Come now, let's not exaggerate. The profit would not be perpetual. You'd have to take additional steps to pull that off. In about 95 years (depending on the applicable copyright term), you'd need to slavishly copy the works of art a second time, into whatever the universal format of choice ends up being by then, and destroy the original copy lest it fall into the public domain. Also, ensure that all licenses to use that first copy expire at this time and require destruction of all outstanding versions. Then you can have everybody re-up for another round.
Well, thats what DRMed file formats are for.
But I always figured that that was the backup plan while retroactive copyright extension was the principle tool here (for example, the EU just recently retroactively extended copyright on music from 50 to 95 years; the US has done something like 3 retroactive extensions in the past).
Another useful tool in this plan 'hosted content'— provide some flash based viewer and no one ends up with a local copy. These are backed up by anti-circumvention laws (fortunately the US law is gracious enough to not apply to protections applied on non-copyrighted works).
There are also database rights. You may not own the works, but if you can assert control over aggregates it is unlikely that copies will be made that people in the future will be able to find.
But even without DRMed files, hosted content, and database laws the regular pace of technology may well make the old digital copies inaccessible: I have storage media (10MB bernoulli box!) and files from the 80s that I can no longer read— so I can only imagine what a hundred years will bring. Not to mention social upheaval and simple errors causing the loss of data.
It's also the case that if organizations come to depend on this income that they'll have an easy time of preserving it in the future, which is really the whole reason that retroactive copyright extensions happen. Offsetting the cost of digitization is completely reasonable, but selling away our descendants rights is not a fair payment.
Copyright is a form of continual income, it doesn't stop when the cost of labor is defrayed. Fortunately the US doesn't allow you to 'capture' public domain works quite so easily, and yet there is no evidence for a lack of digitization here, so at least we have proof that it's not necessary for us to abandon the public domain in order to have digital copies.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org