Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] sue and be damned FOI to NPG
2009/7/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 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. I know this is a bit late, but I just wanted to note this point - FOIA is not a perfect tool. You *can't* request something under the Act which is reasonably accessible to the applicant, which is explicitly defined to include things they have to pay for. It may seem an attractive idea, but if they'll sell you a digital copy regardless, then FOI will run into a brick wall at speed. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] sue and be damned FOI to NPG
Alternatively http://failblog.org/2009/07/13/omg-u-fail-so-hard/ Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ gordon.j...@pobox.com/// ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] sue and be damned FOI to NPG
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.w...@googlemail.com wrote: From: Peter Coombe thewub.w...@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 dah...@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 dger...@gmail.com wrote: From: David Gerard dger...@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 dah...@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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] sue and be damned FOI to NPG
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.w...@googlemail.com wrote: From: Peter Coombe thewub.w...@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 dah...@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 dger...@gmail.com wrote: From: David Gerard dger...@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 dah...@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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- 1001010 100100011111011001101100 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] sue and be damned FOI to NPG
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 sinew...@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.w...@googlemail.com wrote: From: Peter Coombe thewub.w...@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 dah...@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 dger...@gmail.com wrote: From: David Gerard dger...@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 dah...@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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- 1001010 100100011111011001101100 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] sue and be damned FOI to NPG
I have a response from the National Portrait Gallery's press spokesperson that they are drafting a release to issue today. Obviously they've received a lot of interest on this. Brian. -Original Message- From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Peter Coombe Sent: 12 July 2009 11:18 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] sue and be damned FOI to NPG 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 dah...@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 dger...@gmail.com wrote: From: David Gerard dger...@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 dah...@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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] sue and be damned FOI to NPG
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 dger...@gmail.com wrote: From: David Gerard dger...@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 dah...@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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] sue and be damned FOI to NPG
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. --- On Sat, 11/7/09, Virgin, Steve steve.vir...@dowjones.com wrote: From: Virgin, Steve steve.vir...@dowjones.com Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] About that sue and be damned to the National Portrait Gallery ... To: 'wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org' wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 12:17 PM David makes some excellent points. May I suggest one thing? Wouldn't it better if journalists were making the calls that david rightly suggests? If we have some 'friends' in this newspaper community could we not tell them what david explains below and get them to make this call? If we wake them up to the weakness of their position they will simply fix it. If we get the news 'out there' we can simply be interested bystanders watching their troubles. A nicer situation to be in. - Original Message - From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sat Jul 11 11:43:42 2009 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] About that sue and be damnedto the National Portrait Gallery ... 2009/7/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: It gets better: the editor they sent the threat to is an American. So, to recap: A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over what is unambiguously, in established US law, not a copyright violation of any sort. I can't see this ending well for the NPG. In fact, the more legal success they have with this approach (and they do have a plausible cause in the UK, if they throw enough money at arguing so), the more *utterly radioactive* the publicity for them will be. I’ll be calling the NPG first thing Monday (in my capacity as “just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics”) to establish just what they think they’re doing here. Other WMF bloggers and, if interested, journalists may wish to do the same, to establish what their consistent response is. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] sue and be damned FOI to NPG
2009/7/11 Dahsun dah...@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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] sue and be damned FOI to NPG
Why are my posts not appearing on this list when I am a list subscriber? -- Sam Blacketer ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] sue and be damned FOI to NPG
2009/7/11 Sam Blacketer sam.blacke...@googlemail.com: Why are my posts not appearing on this list when I am a list subscriber? You're subscribed as @gmail.com but are now sending from @googlemail.com. I've added a whitelisting for the @googlemail.com address. Others with this problem can solve it easily by subscribing the other address too and setting it to 'nomail.' - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
