On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 11:43 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. -- Sam Blacketer

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Blacketer Sent: 11 July 2009 12:23 To: wikimediauk-l(a)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(a)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. -- Sam Blacketer