[WikiEN-l] NYT: Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos

[geni]

2009/7/20 Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>:
> It would be interesting to compare why low-resolution is considered OK
> here, to support and encourage the revenue stream of a professional
> photographer, but not in the case of the National Portrait Gallery
> (where the underlying works are public domain), and the revenue stream
> is (in theory) supporting the digitisation costs.
>

Because the photographers copyright claim is legit. Under US law the
National Portrait Gallery's isn't.


-- 
geni