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@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Peter Coombe thewub.wiki@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] "sue and be damned" FOI to NPG To: wikimediauk-l@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@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@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] "sue
and be damned" FOI to NPG
To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 1:00 PM
2009/7/11 Dahsun dahsun@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@wikimedia.org
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
That's worth a few wikipediholism points, I'm sure. Maybe you could get a greasemonkey script to convert wikimarkup on non-wiki sites to appropriate formatting. That'd be cool.
--- On Sun, 12/7/09, Peter Coombe thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Peter Coombe thewub.wiki@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] "sue and be damned" FOI to NPG To: wikimediauk-l@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@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@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] "sue
and be damned" FOI to NPG
To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 1:00 PM
2009/7/11 Dahsun dahsun@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@wikimedia.org
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Heh, I never really liked automatic e-mail signatures before Wikipedia. But now I use one just to stop me signing off messages with four tildes :-)
Pete / the wub
2009/7/14 sineWAVE sinewave@silentflame.com
That's worth a few wikipediholism points, I'm sure. Maybe you could get a greasemonkey script to convert wikimarkup on non-wiki sites to appropriate formatting. That'd be cool.
--- On Sun, 12/7/09, Peter Coombe thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Peter Coombe thewub.wiki@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] "sue and be damned" FOI to
NPG
To: wikimediauk-l@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@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@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] "sue
and be damned" FOI to NPG
To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 1:00 PM
2009/7/11 Dahsun dahsun@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@wikimedia.org
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- 1001010 1001000110000111011001101100
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Alternatively....
http://failblog.org/2009/07/13/omg-u-fail-so-hard/
Gordo
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org