[Foundation-l] At least 500 images will have to be deleted from the National Portrait Gallery

[Michael Maggs]

What an astonishing diatribe. Don't like the law? Attack the messenger.

Klaus Graf wrote:
> Michael Maggs has invented the actual Commons "policy" on painting
> reproductions in 2007 by creating the following page:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag
>
> In 2006 and earlyer there was no doubt that Wikimedia Commons is
> accepting Bridgeman v. Corel like the English Wikipedia and the German
> Wikipedia.
>
> In February 2008 Maggs has reverted my quotation of Moeller's statement:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AWhen_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag&diff=9828237&oldid=9827068
>
> In a discussion on this list in 2008 Mike Godwin has made clear that
> he never "overruled" Moeller's statement which is until now the
> official WMF position.
>
> In May 2008 a German law expert H-stt called for revision of the "Maggs-Policy":
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#UK_-_Call_for_revision_of_our_policy
>
> Maggs replied with a long biased discussion of UK citing a 2005 court
> decision "Hyperion Records v Sawkin" which wasn't on reproductions of
> paintings.
>
> A few days later another user Kaldari wrote "According to these
> guidelines, all National Portrait Gallery images must be deleted from
> the Commons" and nominated the first set of National Portrait Gallery
> pictures for deletion.
>
> A lot of German Wikipedians is actually protesting against the "Maggs-Policy":
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/National_Portrait_Gallery_images_%28first_set%29
>
> Maggs and the other deletionists are trying to suppress these opinions
> with the argument "this is not a vote".
>
> A few moments ago I saw on the user page of a friend a deletion
> nomination for a Commons copy of a Danish library reproduction of the
> printed Flora Danica (XVIIIth century) because PD-art doesn't apply in
> Danemark:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Fd2665.jpg
>
> One might dispute that photographs of paintings are protected in some
> countries but that isn't the case here. It is a mere reproduction like
> a scan.
>
> The Maggs-Policy means that Museum's Copyfraud is winning and Public
> Domain is damaged. We cannot have any image of National Portrait
> Gallery because Maggs is arguing that all photographs of the works are
> UK photographs and thus protected by his self-invented Maggs-Policy.
> He ignores that contractual bindings of the photographers aren't
> relevant for the "country of origin". If an US photographer has made
> such a photo legally "country of origin" is US and not UK.
>
> If the Maggs-Policy wins at Commons we cannot host any UK Public
> Domain painting aside of owner allowance. Nobody can go in the
> National Portrait Gallery and can take photos. If NPG hasn't sent us a
> take down notice we should keep this stuff on Commons and revise the
> PD-art doctrine according the position of the WMF.
>
> Klaus Graf
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>