2009/7/11 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
... the National Portrait Gallery appear to be sending legal threats to individual uploaders, after the Foundation ignored their claims as utterly, utterly specious.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dcoetzee/NPG_legal_threat
The editor in question is US-based.
So. What is WMF's response to this odious attempt to enclose the commons?
I don't know if the WMF can/will do much. When we've discussed this situation hypothetically in the past the consensus was that we would all rally round and pay for the appropriate legal representation required (I hereby pledge £10). Wikimedia UK may also be able to help, I don't know (we don't yet have a lawyer, but for something this specific we can find one). I don't know if WMUK wants to get involved with this sort of thing but if it does it could be a useful vehicle for collecting the funds. I have cross-posted this to the UK list.
I imagine the user in question has no choice but the fight the case, since he doesn't have the power to fix the alleged infringement (the commons community may decide to remove them, but our community tends to be of the opinion that we shouldn't bow down to such legal threats, especially under non-US law). I don't know as much about UK copyright law as perhaps I should, given my choice of hobby and my location, but I would be surprised if there was enough creativity or work involved in taking a photograph of a painting for it to be independently copyrightable.
On 11/07/2009, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I imagine the user in question has no choice but the fight the case, since he doesn't have the power to fix the alleged infringement (the commons community may decide to remove them, but our community tends to be of the opinion that we shouldn't bow down to such legal threats, especially under non-US law). I don't know as much about UK copyright law as perhaps I should, given my choice of hobby and my location, but I would be surprised if there was enough creativity or work involved in taking a photograph of a painting for it to be independently copyrightable.
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 contrast, we have the V&A, who - gasp! - realise that spreading their name and exhibits far and wide (Wikipedia Loves Art) is much more likely to get them money and fame than will breathtakingly odious claims of copyright over works hundreds of years old.
Really. Is there anyone sane at the NPG? Do they really expect to successfully sue an American over an action that's unambiguously legal in America?
- d.
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.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 11:43 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
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.
What they think they're doing is protecting their revenue. I've just posted on commons explaining where I think the NPG are coming from. To cut a long story short, they are a non-profit making gallery and licensing reproductions makes them a sizable annual income. They are also key members of a group which co-ordinates other UK museums and galleries on copyright law. They can't just decide to give up this case; they will fight it, if needs be, in court.
Expect the NPG to argue that allowing WMF to host reproductions would, in effect, extend Bridgeman v Corel worldwide, thereby depriving galleries of a significant income from reproduction fees - income which would not therefore be available to fund restoration of pictures etc. They are also likely to say that the result would probably be that galleries would be unable to afford to run websites containing reproductions, so it would actually diminish public access.
I doubt that the media battle will be one-sided. The NPG has a large number of influential friends.
Sending this again - I am a list member but got a bounce message for some reason.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com Date: Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National Portrait Gallery ... To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 11:43 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
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.
What they think they're doing is protecting their revenue. I've just posted on commons explaining where I think the NPG are coming from. To cut a long story short, they are a non-profit making gallery and licensing reproductions makes them a sizable annual income. They are also key members of a group which co-ordinates other UK museums and galleries on copyright law. They can't just decide to give up this case; they will fight it, if needs be, in court.
Expect the NPG to argue that allowing WMF to host reproductions would, in effect, extend Bridgeman v Corel worldwide, thereby depriving galleries of a significant income from reproduction fees - income which would not therefore be available to fund restoration of pictures etc. They are also likely to say that the result would probably be that galleries would be unable to afford to run websites containing reproductions, so it would actually diminish public access.
I doubt that the media battle will be one-sided. The NPG has a large number of influential friends.
I have emailed the culture department, pointed them at the legal threat, and asked a few questions and for a statement on this.
Brian.
-----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Blacketer Sent: 11 July 2009 12:23 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned"to the National Portrait Gallery ...
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 11:43 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
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.
What they think they're doing is protecting their revenue. I've just posted on commons explaining where I think the NPG are coming from. To cut a long story short, they are a non-profit making gallery and licensing reproductions makes them a sizable annual income. They are also key members of a group which co-ordinates other UK museums and galleries on copyright law. They can't just decide to give up this case; they will fight it, if needs be, in court.
Expect the NPG to argue that allowing WMF to host reproductions would, in effect, extend Bridgeman v Corel worldwide, thereby depriving galleries of a significant income from reproduction fees - income which would not therefore be available to fund restoration of pictures etc. They are also likely to say that the result would probably be that galleries would be unable to afford to run websites containing reproductions, so it would actually diminish public access.
I doubt that the media battle will be one-sided. The NPG has a large number of influential friends.
2009/7/11 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
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.
Please don't. This is Derrick's case, let him decide what to do before you do anything. Whatever we are going to do, it needs to be part of a united strategy.
2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/7/11 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
... the National Portrait Gallery appear to be sending legal threats to individual uploaders, after the Foundation ignored their claims as utterly, utterly specious.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dcoetzee/NPG_legal_threat
The editor in question is US-based.
So. What is WMF's response to this odious attempt to enclose the commons?
I don't know if the WMF can/will do much. When we've discussed this situation hypothetically in the past the consensus was that we would all rally round and pay for the appropriate legal representation required (I hereby pledge £10). Wikimedia UK may also be able to help, I don't know (we don't yet have a lawyer, but for something this specific we can find one). I don't know if WMUK wants to get involved with this sort of thing but if it does it could be a useful vehicle for collecting the funds. I have cross-posted this to the UK list.
I imagine the user in question has no choice but the fight the case, since he doesn't have the power to fix the alleged infringement (the commons community may decide to remove them, but our community tends to be of the opinion that we shouldn't bow down to such legal threats, especially under non-US law). I don't know as much about UK copyright law as perhaps I should, given my choice of hobby and my location, but I would be surprised if there was enough creativity or work involved in taking a photograph of a painting for it to be independently copyrightable.
General opinion is that creativity isn't required for copyright in the UK as long as enough work went into it.
From a legal POV there is little point in fighting this in the UK. Far
better to fight when it hits the US if the NPG is stupid enough to take it that far.
As long as the case remains within the UK our best line of attack is probably PR based. On the face of it thats pretty hopeless. Trying to get people annoyed about the national portrait gallery over some arcane copyright issues is not going to be easy.
Sure for things like slashdot just mentioning the DRM angle will probably do it but getting the wider public/media involved would be problematical. The WMF could probably do it but without dirrect action on their part this could be tricky.
2009/7/11 geni geniice@gmail.com:
General opinion is that creativity isn't required for copyright in the UK as long as enough work went into it.
My brow doesn't generally sweat when I take photographs, but that is presumably the approach they would take.
From a legal POV there is little point in fighting this in the UK. Far better to fight when it hits the US if the NPG is stupid enough to take it that far.
As they say in their email, there is clear precedent that it isn't illegal in the US, so they aren't going to take it there.
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org