Wikimediauk-l July 2009

wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org

22 participants
43 discussions

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] "sue and be damned" FOI to NPG
by Dahsun 16 Jul '09

16 Jul '09

Perhaps the air would be slightly clearer if Wikimedia UK were to make Freedom of Information Act requests to the NPG and other Publicly funded galleries for the highest def digital photos they have available of any artworks in their possession. --- On Sat, 11/7/09, Virgin, Steve <Steve.Virgin(a)dowjones.com> wrote: > From: Virgin, Steve <Steve.Virgin(a)dowjones.com> > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National Portrait Gallery ... > To: "'wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org'" <wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Date: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 12:17 PM > > David makes some excellent points. May I suggest one > thing? > > Wouldn't it better if journalists were making the calls > that david rightly suggests? > > If we have some 'friends' in this newspaper community could > we not tell them what david explains below and get them to > make this call? > > If we wake them up to the weakness of their position they > will simply fix it. > > If we get the news 'out there' we can simply be > interested bystanders watching their troubles. A nicer > situation to be in. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: wikimediauk-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org > <wikimediauk-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > <wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Sent: Sat Jul 11 11:43:42 2009 > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] About that "sue > and be damned" to the National Portrait > Gallery ... > > 2009/7/11 David Gerard <dgerard(a)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. > >

4 4

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] "sue and be damned" FOI to NPG
by Dahsun 15 Jul '09

15 Jul '09

If the NPG were a governmenet agency with a remit to maximise the commercial value of its information then I could understand that it would claim the commercial exemption from FOI. But their remit is to make their collection available to the Public and they object to us helping them do that? I'm not sure what "This exemption is public interest tested." means, but I'd like to think that we could dispute any attempt by them to restrict Public access to the photos of the paintings that they are looking after and supposedly displaying to the public. ~~~~ --- On Sun, 12/7/09, Peter Coombe <thewub.wiki(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > From: Peter Coombe <thewub.wiki(a)googlemail.com> > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] "sue and be damned" FOI to NPG > To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Date: Sunday, 12 July, 2009, 11:18 AM > But even if FOI is deemed to apply to > photographs of artwork, they could release the files and > still maintain their claim of copyright > http://www.dca.gov.uk/foi/yourRights/index.htm#receive > > > They could also claim commercial interest (IMO reasonably) > as a reason not to comply with such a FOI request, but this > is at least tested against the public interest. > http://www.dca.gov.uk/foi/yourRights/exemptions.htm#43 > > > Pete / the wub > > > > 2009/7/12 Dahsun <dahsun(a)yahoo.com> > > > > I agree that the WMUK shouldn't get directly involved, > but if without making any reference to the case in hand they > request the same information under the FOI then I would have > thought they were indirectly rather than directly involved. > > > > > As for whether the FOI has an exemption for artwork, well > I'd be interested in what the lawyers have to say on > this as there is some legalese in the legislation that I > can't get my head around. > > > > However the National Portrait Gallery has its own handy http://www.npg.org.uk/about/foi.php > section on FOI, and I don't read that as containing any > substantial claim of exemption from the Act for the gallery. > They also have some fine objectives including "the > provision of access to the national collection of portraits > for all sections of the population" but reassuringly > not "the restriction of access to the national > collection of portraits only to those who can visit the > gallery in person" or "maximising of the > commercial use of the images" ~~~~ > > > > > --- On Sat, 11/7/09, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] "sue > and be damned" FOI to NPG > > > To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > Date: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 1:00 PM > > > 2009/7/11 Dahsun <dahsun(a)yahoo.com>: > > > > > > > Perhaps the air would be slightly clearer if > Wikimedia > > > UK were to make Freedom of Information Act requests to > the > > > NPG and other Publicly funded galleries for the > highest def > > > digital photos they have available of any artworks in > their > > > possession. > > > > > > > > > WMUK getting directly involved in this would be very > bad > > > for WMUK's > > > (legal) perceived separation from WMF. Of course, > WMUK > > > could > > > meaningfully comment that "claiming copyright on > something > > > four > > > hundred years old is more than a little odious - > it's not > > > like the > > > painter will paint another painting if only th NPG can > make > > > legal > > > threats." > > > > > > That said, your approach is most certainly > particularly > > > amusing :-D I > > > expect they'd claim these were commercial works > and the > > > core of their > > > business or somesuch. > > > > > > > > > - d. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia UK mailing list > > > wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org > > > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > > > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia UK mailing list > > wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org > > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org > > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org >

4 3

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - July 2009 Issue
by Paul Williams 15 Jul '09

15 Jul '09

1 0

Open Source Schools conference, Nottingham, Monday 20th July
by Andrew Turvey 15 Jul '09

15 Jul '09

I'm pleased to share with everyone that I've managed to get myself in as a speaker in the Open Source Schools "un"conference in Nottingham next Monday 20th July. Although it's primarily focused on open source software, they have agreed to extend it to talking about open source content as well. I'll be leading a session from 2:05 - 2:35 on the subject of "using Wikipedia in Schools" More details are: Session introduction: http://opensourceschools.org.uk/node/11659 Conference programme: http://opensourceschools.org.uk/unconference09 Venue: http://www.ncsl.org.uk/lcc-map.pdf If you are able to come along please do - it runs from 10-4 at a venue near Nottingham University. The cost is free for all school and local authority staff and presenters and £55 for others. The key note speakers are George Auckland , Head of Learning Innovation at BBC Learning and Graham Attwell , Director of Pontydysgu , an e-learning company. Please spread the word and please let me have any suggestions for the kinds of things I should cover. Regards, Andrew

4 5

Wikinews' article on the National Portrait Gallery threat
by Brian McNeil 14 Jul '09

14 Jul '09

Wikinews has its article up for review. It should be published and in Google News pretty much as-is. http://tinyurl.com/WN-NPG It is quote long and mindful of the discussion over the weekend. Brian.

1 0

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Private schools charity threat
by Thomas Dalton 14 Jul '09

14 Jul '09

2009/7/14 Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com>: > > This story was in the news today. Seems "education" ain't wot is used > to be... and neither is charity. > > ****** > > Charity rules now mean private schools have to prove "public benefit" That's hardly news, the rules changed a while back and the private schools were complaining then. (I guess the change may be just coming into force.) It shouldn't make any difference to us, though. We are clearly in the public benefit, it's the education bit the HMRC was contesting, if memory serves.

1 0

Private schools charity threat
by Gordon Joly 14 Jul '09

14 Jul '09

This story was in the news today. Seems "education" ain't wot is used to be... and neither is charity. ****** Charity rules now mean private schools have to prove "public benefit" Independent schools in England are protesting about "too narrow" rules for charitable status - as two out of five test-case schools fail to qualify. The loss of charitable status threatens tax benefits for independent schools. The Independent Schools Council says the rulings rely too much on the number of bursaries, with fees likely to have to rise to fund subsidised places. The Charity Commission says charities must "demonstrate how they bring real benefit to the public". ***** Full story at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8148347.stm Gordon -- "Think Feynman"///////// http://pobox.com/~gordo/ gordon.joly(a)pobox.com///

1 0

FW: National Portrait Gallery threat of legal action
by Brian McNeil 14 Jul '09

14 Jul '09

Statement from the National Portrait Gallery. -----Original Message----- From: Eleanor Macnair [mailto:emacnair@npg.org.uk] Sent: 13 July 2009 16:41 To: Brian McNeil Subject: RE: National Portrait Gallery threat of legal action Dear Brian As requested please find attached a statement from the National Portrait Gallery about the matter referred to in your e-mail. I do hope this is helpful and please do let me know if you have any further questions. Best wishes Eleanor -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eleanor Macnair Press Officer Communications & Development National Portrait Gallery St Martin's Place London WC2H OHE Direct T 020 7321 6620 F 020 7930 1998 www.npg.org.uk <http://www.npg.org.uk/> click here <http://www.patronmailuk.com/bnmailweb/PatronSetup?oid=29> to register for the Gallery's e-newsletter This e-mail, and any attachment, is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. P Please consider the environment; do you really need to print this email? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _____ From: Brian McNeil [mailto:brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org] Sent: 11 July 2009 16:23 To: Eleanor Macnair Cc: scoop(a)wikinewsie.org Subject: National Portrait Gallery threat of legal action Dear Eleanor, I am a freelance journalist looking into reports that the NPR has threatened legal action against a non-resident U.S. citizen. The following email has come into my possession, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dcoetzee/NPG_legal_threat I have contacted the culture secretary, shadow culture secretary, and a number of organisations within the UK for comment. I would appreciate a statement of the NPR's position on this, and if they consider the current legislation that makes such threats possible appropriate in the modern world. Regards, Brian McNeil Wikinews.

5 6

Has anyone been in touch with NPG yet?
by David Gerard 13 Jul '09

13 Jul '09

I was going to call NPG this morning first thing (as a volunteer, to see what could be reasonably done to avert a public battle - our own museum/gallery liaison volunteers can really, really do without a public battle fouling up their ongoing efforts) but was awake all night with a sick child and so I just got up ... has anyone here called yet, as a volunteer? I know Physchim62, who did a lot to get the American Chemical Society working with us, was going to call. Has anyone else? (I don't hold out much hope for this - the NPG's position has been completely consistent and completely uncooperative for many years.. But it's always worth asking.) It's reasonably important to avoid discussing the possible legal case, for Dcoetzee's sake, *but* the NPG's lawyers have effectively written a press release read by ten thousand Wikimedians and a million Slashdot readers, that clearly does directly and personally affect a lot of them. I bet it's been more widely read than any intentional press release of theirs has been. Ideal outcome: PD everything, they welcome a team of our photographers in. Plausible good outcome: We put up the hi-res images with notes that they are PD in the US but the NPG claims copyright in Europe and releases them under CC-by-sa, and full credit is requested in either case. (Copyleft is not as ideal as PD, but it's plenty good enough for us.) We issue press releases lauding the NPG to the skies and say nice things about them forever. Another plausible good outcome: They welcome a team of our photographers in. Careful supervision, etc. Then we can do stuff like infrared shots as well (which can show interesting things about a painting's restoration history). Awful outcome: great big legal battle. Bad outcome: mainstream press about this at all, really. The NPG probably doesn't see it that way. Any other possible outcomes to list? Additional data point: the NPG has removed the hi-res versions. Thus, the Wikimedia copies are the *only* copies currently available. This makes it actually culturally important for us to keep them up! - d.

1 0

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] "sue and be damned" FOI to NPG
by Dahsun 13 Jul '09

13 Jul '09

I agree that the WMUK shouldn't get directly involved, but if without making any reference to the case in hand they request the same information under the FOI then I would have thought they were indirectly rather than directly involved. As for whether the FOI has an exemption for artwork, well I'd be interested in what the lawyers have to say on this as there is some legalese in the legislation that I can't get my head around. However the National Portrait Gallery has its own handy http://www.npg.org.uk/about/foi.php section on FOI, and I don't read that as containing any substantial claim of exemption from the Act for the gallery. They also have some fine objectives including "the provision of access to the national collection of portraits for all sections of the population" but reassuringly not "the restriction of access to the national collection of portraits only to those who can visit the gallery in person" or "maximising of the commercial use of the images" ~~~~ --- On Sat, 11/7/09, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] "sue and be damned" FOI to NPG > To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Date: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 1:00 PM > 2009/7/11 Dahsun <dahsun(a)yahoo.com>: > > > Perhaps the air would be slightly clearer if Wikimedia > UK were to make Freedom of Information Act requests to the > NPG and other Publicly funded galleries for the highest def > digital photos they have available of any artworks in their > possession. > > > WMUK getting directly involved in this would be very bad > for WMUK's > (legal) perceived separation from WMF. Of course, WMUK > could > meaningfully comment that "claiming copyright on something > four > hundred years old is more than a little odious - it's not > like the > painter will paint another painting if only th NPG can make > legal > threats." > > That said, your approach is most certainly particularly > amusing :-D I > expect they'd claim these were commercial works and the > core of their > business or somesuch. > > > - d. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org >

3 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

Wikimediauk-l July 2009