Michael Maggs has invented the actual Commons "policy" on painting reproductions in 2007 by creating the following page:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag
In 2006 and earlyer there was no doubt that Wikimedia Commons is accepting Bridgeman v. Corel like the English Wikipedia and the German Wikipedia.
In February 2008 Maggs has reverted my quotation of Moeller's statement:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AWhen_to_use_the_PD-...
In a discussion on this list in 2008 Mike Godwin has made clear that he never "overruled" Moeller's statement which is until now the official WMF position.
In May 2008 a German law expert H-stt called for revision of the "Maggs-Policy":
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#UK...
Maggs replied with a long biased discussion of UK citing a 2005 court decision "Hyperion Records v Sawkin" which wasn't on reproductions of paintings.
A few days later another user Kaldari wrote "According to these guidelines, all National Portrait Gallery images must be deleted from the Commons" and nominated the first set of National Portrait Gallery pictures for deletion.
A lot of German Wikipedians is actually protesting against the "Maggs-Policy": http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/National_Portrai...
Maggs and the other deletionists are trying to suppress these opinions with the argument "this is not a vote".
A few moments ago I saw on the user page of a friend a deletion nomination for a Commons copy of a Danish library reproduction of the printed Flora Danica (XVIIIth century) because PD-art doesn't apply in Danemark:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Fd2665.jpg
One might dispute that photographs of paintings are protected in some countries but that isn't the case here. It is a mere reproduction like a scan.
The Maggs-Policy means that Museum's Copyfraud is winning and Public Domain is damaged. We cannot have any image of National Portrait Gallery because Maggs is arguing that all photographs of the works are UK photographs and thus protected by his self-invented Maggs-Policy. He ignores that contractual bindings of the photographers aren't relevant for the "country of origin". If an US photographer has made such a photo legally "country of origin" is US and not UK.
If the Maggs-Policy wins at Commons we cannot host any UK Public Domain painting aside of owner allowance. Nobody can go in the National Portrait Gallery and can take photos. If NPG hasn't sent us a take down notice we should keep this stuff on Commons and revise the PD-art doctrine according the position of the WMF.
Klaus Graf
What an astonishing diatribe. Don't like the law? Attack the messenger.
Klaus Graf wrote:
Michael Maggs has invented the actual Commons "policy" on painting reproductions in 2007 by creating the following page:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag
In 2006 and earlyer there was no doubt that Wikimedia Commons is accepting Bridgeman v. Corel like the English Wikipedia and the German Wikipedia.
In February 2008 Maggs has reverted my quotation of Moeller's statement:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AWhen_to_use_the_PD-...
In a discussion on this list in 2008 Mike Godwin has made clear that he never "overruled" Moeller's statement which is until now the official WMF position.
In May 2008 a German law expert H-stt called for revision of the "Maggs-Policy":
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#UK...
Maggs replied with a long biased discussion of UK citing a 2005 court decision "Hyperion Records v Sawkin" which wasn't on reproductions of paintings.
A few days later another user Kaldari wrote "According to these guidelines, all National Portrait Gallery images must be deleted from the Commons" and nominated the first set of National Portrait Gallery pictures for deletion.
A lot of German Wikipedians is actually protesting against the "Maggs-Policy": http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/National_Portrai...
Maggs and the other deletionists are trying to suppress these opinions with the argument "this is not a vote".
A few moments ago I saw on the user page of a friend a deletion nomination for a Commons copy of a Danish library reproduction of the printed Flora Danica (XVIIIth century) because PD-art doesn't apply in Danemark:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Fd2665.jpg
One might dispute that photographs of paintings are protected in some countries but that isn't the case here. It is a mere reproduction like a scan.
The Maggs-Policy means that Museum's Copyfraud is winning and Public Domain is damaged. We cannot have any image of National Portrait Gallery because Maggs is arguing that all photographs of the works are UK photographs and thus protected by his self-invented Maggs-Policy. He ignores that contractual bindings of the photographers aren't relevant for the "country of origin". If an US photographer has made such a photo legally "country of origin" is US and not UK.
If the Maggs-Policy wins at Commons we cannot host any UK Public Domain painting aside of owner allowance. Nobody can go in the National Portrait Gallery and can take photos. If NPG hasn't sent us a take down notice we should keep this stuff on Commons and revise the PD-art doctrine according the position of the WMF.
Klaus Graf
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com wrote:
Michael Maggs has invented the actual Commons "policy" on painting reproductions in 2007 by creating the following page:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag
Now you are talking bullshit. Because you don't like a certain policy you don't have to attack the messenger.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org