--- 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>om>:
> 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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org