[Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National Portrait Gallery ...

[Ray Saintonge]

Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Ray Saintonge<saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>   
>> If in retrospect, publishing the letter is seen as a strategic mistake,
>> it can't be unpublished.  There are arguments available for it being a
>> strategic positive.
>>     
> One argument for it being a mistake is that the early disclosure has
> diminished his supporters ability to shape the public debate.
>   

Yes and no. Shaping public debate implies a certain degree of control 
over this shape.  That does have a dark side if there is no prior 
understanding about where that  public debate should be going. Wide 
publicity may help fundraising for legal costs if things ever get that far.
> There are some relevant pieces of information that would influence
> people's opinions, things like that the NPG previously complaining
> about low resolution photographs and photographs taken by the
> uploaders. (I haven't gone and tried to find examples from the latter
> from the NPG, but UK museums have routinely tried to assert copyright
> over photographs taken by commons contributors).
>   

If they were previously complaining about low res photos, but are now 
offering them as some kind of offer in compromise, there is room there 
for positive movement.  Others might see this as a sign of weakness in 
their position.  It's up to WMF to accept or not.  The question then 
becomes whether there is more to be gained from a satisfactory median 
resolution, or an all out victory that opens up the possibility of a loss.
> The real interesting story here is that museums all over the over the
> world believe that holding the physical good gives them unlimited
> rights to regulate all uses of copies and even rights to regulate
> discussions of those works, and that they are now beginning to partner
> with commercial service providers seeking to monetize that control and
> becoming litigious as a result. In the end the public's access to the
> works shrinks, the public domain is eroded, and the lie is put to the
> lofty claims of education, promotion, and preservation included in the
> grant requests and mission statements of museums.
Agreed, and it goes beyond just museums.  Film makers, record producers, 
newspapers ... all are finding the economic models that sustained them 
before the internet age are collapsing.  Kuhn said that a paradigm shift 
would have victims.  If NPG wins it case that situation won't be changed 
by such a blip.  We can probably agree that museums and other cultural 
institutions are valuable assets to a society, and we can probably agree 
that there are costs connected with maintaining those assets.  It's also 
evident that the informational value of each artifact is unique, and the 
artifact is not multiplied to accommodate growing demand.  Accepting low 
resolution images may be a stepping stone to greater co-operation in the 
future.  Beyond that it becomes a need for cultural institutions to 
recognize that they need the volunteer sector or risk pricing themselves 
out of the market trying to meet the increasingly sophisticated demands 
of the online communities.  They will still need funding, but that 
funding is not without limits. The funders live in a real world where 
there are many other funding demands. 

Ec