[Foundation-l] National Portrait Gallery

[Happy-melon]

IANAL, but I don't think I need to be to say the "The Foundation" is not in 
legal jeopardy here unless it chooses to be.  It's protected by a 
four-thousand-mile moat, a war of independence, several layers of legal code 
and a US Supreme Court decision.  It doesn't have any assets in the UK as 
far as I'm aware; there is absolutely nothing a UK court could punish them 
with.  That's not the same as saying that a UK court case couldn't result in 
a judgment that was disadvantageous to the Foundation.  For instance, I 
*believe* from the same set of legal issues as those surrounding 
peer-to-peer filesharing, that if the images were unequivocally found to be 
copyright violations in the UK, then any UK reader or editor who accessed 
them could be exposed to some sort of legal nastiness.

I agree that any comment, however informal, from someone who *is* an English 
lawyer, would be very useful.

--HM

"peter boelens" <pboel at xs4all.nl> wrote in 
message news:CF6DC9A6B75E4D7583CCDCA394FC6AA6 at cc1070822a...
> I probably missed a few posts, but the way this is going raises some 
> serious
> questions. It would be helpfull if someone with good knowledge of English
> Law would explain the risks of going trough the English Courts. I am a
> lawyer, but not an English one. What I do know of the English Legal system
> is that losing a lawsuit there is a very expensive excercise. And if this
> thing goes to court there is a real chance that the Foundation will loose.
> So a deal with NPG would be the sensible thing, and if a deal is not
> possible deleting seems the better option.
> Peter b.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>