Mailing List Archive

2009/7/11 Sue Gardner <susanpgardner@gmail.com>:
> Point of clarification -- the Wikimedia Foundation sends out press releases to international media, not just US media.  We have no plans to send out a press release on this issue.

Of course, what I meant was that only the WMF sends press releases to
US media, not that the WMF only sends press releases to US media.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Sure. Actually the New York chapter probably sends some press releases to US media too; I'm not sure.

------Original Message------
From: Thomas Dalton
To: susanpgardner@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Jul 11, 2009 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

2009/7/11 Sue Gardner <susanpgardner@gmail.com>:
> Point of clarification -- the Wikimedia Foundation sends out press releases to international media, not just US media.  We have no plans to send out a press release on this issue.

Of course, what I meant was that only the WMF sends press releases to
US media, not that the WMF only sends press releases to US media.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Isn't it the best thing to remove the images, like they demand, and let
someone from the UK Wikimedia foundation contact them about the part where
they are saying "Our client remains willing to enter into a dialogue with
the Wikimedia Foundation to discuss terms upon which low-resolution images
of paintings in its collection can be made available on the Wikipedia
website and our client will continue to write to the Wikimedia Foundation
with requests for discussion. However, to date, the Wikimedia Foundation has
ignored our client’s attempts to negotiate this issue, preferring instead to
take a more harsh approach that one would expect of a corporate entity."...
It looks to me they want to do it for free, if you put some notice amongst
the picture.

They only thing that I don't understand is that they claim that no-one from
the wikimedia foundation ever responded to this. Is there any reason for
this?

2009/7/11 David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com>

> 2009/7/11 John at Darkstar <vacuum@jeb.no>:
>
> > In the case of GalleriNOR several people uploaded images from the site
> > without prior agreement with neither NB nor NF. After a while I get in
> > touch with them and asked how we should handle the case, what people
> > believed was the right thing to do from our side and what NB and NF
> > wanted to do. First the stand was established as "the images must be
> > deleted" and "we don't want to delete them", then we said "okey we will
> > attempt to get them deleted through due process - but hey, how much of
> > the traffic come from our site?" Then things get a bit amusing. The
> > thing is, about 60% of the traffic originates from Wikimedia Commons and
> > with the additional internal traffic generated from this we probably
> > generates over 80% of the traffic on the site. This isn't neglible
> > amouths of traffic on a site, removing the images on Commons would pull
> > the plug on the majority of the traffic.
>
>
> :-D
>
> We should ask the NPG about their website traffic ;-)
>
> Do all NPG images have a link back? They should.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/7/11 Tom Maaswinkel <tom.maaswinkel@12wiki.eu>:

> Isn't it the best thing to remove the images, like they demand, and let
> someone from the UK Wikimedia foundation contact them about the part where
> they are saying "Our client remains willing to enter into a dialogue with
> the Wikimedia Foundation to discuss terms upon which low-resolution images
> of paintings in its collection can be made available on the Wikipedia
> website and our client will continue to write to the Wikimedia Foundation
> with requests for discussion. However, to date, the Wikimedia Foundation has
> ignored our client’s attempts to negotiate this issue, preferring instead to
> take a more harsh approach that one would expect of a corporate entity."...
> It looks to me they want to do it for free, if you put some notice amongst
> the picture.


This is something to ask directly.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Tom Maaswinkel<tom.maaswinkel@12wiki.eu> wrote:
[snip]
> They only thing that I don't understand is that they claim that no-one from
> the wikimedia foundation ever responded to this. Is there any reason for
> this?

That isn't what they claimed.

They claimed:
"Our client contacted the Wikimedia Foundation in April 2009 to
request that the images be removed but the Wikimedia Foundation has
refused to do so […]"

The initial complaint (OTRS #2009060110061897 for those with access)
was made by a commercial partner (in the US) of the NPG, and was the
typically legally uninformed nonsense that comes in often enough to
have a boilerplate reply. They were given the standard "Wikimedia and
it's servers are based in the US. Under US law such images are public
domain per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Therefore no
permission is
required to use them." response. Presumably the commercial vendor got
the NPG to make the legal threat under UK law because we adequately
expressed that there was clearly no copyright concern under US law.


They also stated:
"However, to date, the Wikimedia Foundation has ignored our client’s
attempts to negotiate this issue, preferring instead to take a more
harsh approach that one would expect of a corporate entity."

Please— allow me to translate: "We're confused. We're used to dealing
with organizations like YouTube who will roll over instantly even for
the most obvious cases of CopyFraud. Why wont you play along with our
effort to lock up and monetize the public domain?"

Thank you, Wikimedia Foundation, for not being yet another Web 2.0 get
rich quick scheme.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Gregory Maxwell<gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Tom Maaswinkel<tom.maaswinkel@12wiki.eu> wrote:
> [snip]
>> They only thing that I don't understand is that they claim that no-one from
>> the wikimedia foundation ever responded to this. Is there any reason for
>> this?
>
> That isn't what they claimed.
>
> They claimed:
> "Our client contacted the Wikimedia Foundation in April 2009 to
> request that the images be removed but the Wikimedia Foundation has
> refused to do so […]"
>
> The initial complaint (OTRS #2009060110061897 for those with access)
> was made by a commercial partner (in the US) of the NPG, and was the
> typically legally uninformed nonsense that comes in often enough to
> have a boilerplate reply. They were given the standard "Wikimedia and
> it's servers are based in the US. Under US law such images are public
> domain per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Therefore no
> permission is
> required to use them." response.  Presumably the commercial vendor got
> the NPG to make the legal threat under UK law because we adequately
> expressed that there was clearly no copyright concern under US law.


For clarity sake I should point out that the neither the complaint to
Wikimedia, nor the response to the OTRS reply, included any offer of
compromise.

In the past these kinds of arrangements have been negotiated. But
escalating with legal force makes a sham of any good faith effort to
negotiate, sadly.

As a practical matter, and a matter of principle, we can't accept that
people can take exclusive ownership of the public domain simply by
performing a little dance. Nor can we accept that UK law can be
imposed on the Wikimedia Foundation or its US contributors, as under
UK law our projects could likely not exist for a even day.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Gregory Maxwell<gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> For clarity sake I should point out that the neither the complaint to
> Wikimedia, nor the response to the OTRS reply, included any offer of
> compromise.

Also worth mentioning is that a copyright complaint by the NPG in 2006
where the initial response from our side was "What we're doing is
permitted by US law" was satisfactorily resolved by providing
attribution and back-links on the image page.

I suspect the increasing number of commercial partnerships to provide
access to PD works is moving the bar and sending some webtraffic and
attribution is no longer competitive with with others are able to
offer providing that the content can be locked up and exclusive access
assured.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

What an insult, Derrick only rates a solicitor




________________________________
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 3:17:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Tom Maaswinkel<tom.maaswinkel@12wiki.eu> wrote:
[snip]
> They only thing that I don't understand is that they claim that no-one from
> the wikimedia foundation ever responded to this. Is there any reason for
> this?

That isn't what they claimed.

They claimed:
"Our client contacted the Wikimedia Foundation in April 2009 to
request that the images be removed but the Wikimedia Foundation has
refused to do so […]"

The initial complaint (OTRS #2009060110061897 for those with access)
was made by a commercial partner (in the US) of the NPG, and was the
typically legally uninformed nonsense that comes in often enough to
have a boilerplate reply. They were given the standard "Wikimedia and
it's servers are based in the US. Under US law such images are public
domain per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Therefore no
permission is
required to use them." response. Presumably the commercial vendor got
the NPG to make the legal threat under UK law because we adequately
expressed that there was clearly no copyright concern under US law.


They also stated:
"However, to date, the Wikimedia Foundation has ignored our client’s
attempts to negotiate this issue, preferring instead to take a more
harsh approach that one would expect of a corporate entity."

Please— allow me to translate: "We're confused. We're used to dealing
with organizations like YouTube who will roll over instantly even for
the most obvious cases of CopyFraud. Why wont you play along with our
effort to lock up and monetize the public domain?"

Thank you, Wikimedia Foundation, for not being yet another Web 2.0 get
rich quick scheme.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
Please explain why would Derrick rate a solicitor ?
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/7/12 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com>

> What an insult, Derrick only rates a solicitor
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 3:17:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the
> NationalPortrait Gallery ...
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Tom Maaswinkel<tom.maaswinkel@12wiki.eu>
> wrote:
> [snip]
> > They only thing that I don't understand is that they claim that no-one
> from
> > the wikimedia foundation ever responded to this. Is there any reason for
> > this?
>
> That isn't what they claimed.
>
> They claimed:
> "Our client contacted the Wikimedia Foundation in April 2009 to
> request that the images be removed but the Wikimedia Foundation has
> refused to do so […]"
>
> The initial complaint (OTRS #2009060110061897 for those with access)
> was made by a commercial partner (in the US) of the NPG, and was the
> typically legally uninformed nonsense that comes in often enough to
> have a boilerplate reply. They were given the standard "Wikimedia and
> it's servers are based in the US. Under US law such images are public
> domain per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Therefore no
> permission is
> required to use them." response. Presumably the commercial vendor got
> the NPG to make the legal threat under UK law because we adequately
> expressed that there was clearly no copyright concern under US law.
>
>
> They also stated:
> "However, to date, the Wikimedia Foundation has ignored our client’s
> attempts to negotiate this issue, preferring instead to take a more
> harsh approach that one would expect of a corporate entity."
>
> Please— allow me to translate: "We're confused. We're used to dealing
> with organizations like YouTube who will roll over instantly even for
> the most obvious cases of CopyFraud. Why wont you play along with our
> effort to lock up and monetize the public domain?"
>
> Thank you, Wikimedia Foundation, for not being yet another Web 2.0 get
> rich quick scheme.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/7/12 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com>:
> What an insult, Derrick only rates a solicitor

As opposed to a barrister? You're mistaken; solicitors would be
involved in such matters before going to court. Barristers would only
be instructed by the solicitors when they were going to court (or,
conceivably, to consider a point of law; hiring an expensive silk for
a day can be a relatively cheap way of settling such points).


J.
--
James D. Forrester
jdforrester@wikimedia.org | jdforrester@gmail.com
[[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/7/12 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Tom Maaswinkel<tom.maaswinkel@
>
> 12wiki.eu> wrote:
> [snip]
> > They only thing that I don't understand is that they claim that no-one
> from
> > the wikimedia foundation ever responded to this. Is there any reason for
> > this?
>
> That isn't what they claimed.
>
> They claimed:
> "Our client contacted the Wikimedia Foundation in April 2009 to
> request that the images be removed but the Wikimedia Foundation has
> refused to do so […]"


The part I am talking about is the part where they say that they want to
talk to the Wikimedia Fundation to have a discussion about making
low-resolution images of paintings in its collection available!


2009/7/12 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>

> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Tom Maaswinkel<tom.maaswinkel@12wiki.eu>
> wrote:
> [snip]
> > They only thing that I don't understand is that they claim that no-one
> from
> > the wikimedia foundation ever responded to this. Is there any reason for
> > this?
>
> That isn't what they claimed.
>
> They claimed:
> "Our client contacted the Wikimedia Foundation in April 2009 to
> request that the images be removed but the Wikimedia Foundation has
> refused to do so […]"
>
> The initial complaint (OTRS #2009060110061897 for those with access)
> was made by a commercial partner (in the US) of the NPG, and was the
> typically legally uninformed nonsense that comes in often enough to
> have a boilerplate reply. They were given the standard "Wikimedia and
> it's servers are based in the US. Under US law such images are public
> domain per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Therefore no
> permission is
> required to use them." response. Presumably the commercial vendor got
> the NPG to make the legal threat under UK law because we adequately
> expressed that there was clearly no copyright concern under US law.
>
>
> They also stated:
> "However, to date, the Wikimedia Foundation has ignored our client’s
> attempts to negotiate this issue, preferring instead to take a more
> harsh approach that one would expect of a corporate entity."
>
> Please— allow me to translate: "We're confused. We're used to dealing
> with organizations like YouTube who will roll over instantly even for
> the most obvious cases of CopyFraud. Why wont you play along with our
> effort to lock up and monetize the public domain?"
>
> Thank you, Wikimedia Foundation, for not being yet another Web 2.0 get
> rich quick scheme.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Tom Maaswinkel<tom.maaswinkel@12wiki.eu> wrote:
> The part I am talking about is the part where they say that they want to
> talk to the Wikimedia Fundation to have a discussion about making
> low-resolution images of paintings in its collection available!

Incidentally, the NPG appears to have removed the zoomify feature from
their website (or at least it wasn't present on the sample of images I
looked at). As a result, it would appear that WMF presently has more
detailed images on Commons than are available in any form on NPG's
website. In the typical case, our images appear to be 3 or 4 times
larger in linear dimension than the largest view they currently make
available.

-Robert Rohde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/7/12 Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Tom Maaswinkel<tom.maaswinkel@12wiki.eu> wrote:

>> The part I am talking about is the part where they say that they want to
>> talk to the Wikimedia Fundation to have a discussion about making
>> low-resolution images of paintings in its collection available!

> Incidentally, the NPG appears to have removed the zoomify feature from
> their website (or at least it wasn't present on the sample of images I
> looked at).  As a result, it would appear that WMF presently has more
> detailed images on Commons than are available in any form on NPG's
> website.  In the typical case, our images appear to be 3 or 4 times
> larger in linear dimension than the largest view they currently make
> available.


Oh, that's good. "We had to destroy the images to propagate them."


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

A Wikipedia Signpost article intended to recount the facts and context
of the legal threat is in progress:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-07-13/Copyright_threat

Comments, suggestions, and contributions are welcome. In particular,
there is some discussion on the talk page of a few issues where more
input would be helpful.

Cheers,
Sage (User:Ragesoss)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Robert Rohde<rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Tom Maaswinkel<tom.maaswinkel@12wiki.eu> wrote:
>> The part I am talking about is the part where they say that they want to
>> talk to the Wikimedia Fundation to have a discussion about making
>> low-resolution images of paintings in its collection available!
>
> Incidentally, the NPG appears to have removed the zoomify feature from
> their website (or at least it wasn't present on the sample of images I
> looked at).  As a result, it would appear that WMF presently has more
> detailed images on Commons than are available in any form on NPG's
> website.  In the typical case, our images appear to be 3 or 4 times
> larger in linear dimension than the largest view they currently make
> available.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I don't suppose anyone has a mirror of our copies, just in case
Foundation decides to comply with NPG's demands (a long shot, for
sure)? Probably be best to make sure this information isn't lost,
especially since NPG has now made the high-res images unavailable to
anyone.

--Dan

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Sue Gardner<susanpgardner@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure. Actually the New York chapter probably sends some press releases to US media too; I'm not sure.

FYI We have had a number of contacts with journalists, but so far we
have not been in the habit of putting out formal press releases. This
may change in future; it's just a question of the particulars of
public relations management.

Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)
Wikimedia NYC

> ------Original Message------
> From: Thomas Dalton
> To: susanpgardner@gmail.com
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Sent: Jul 11, 2009 10:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...
>
> 2009/7/11 Sue Gardner <susanpgardner@gmail.com>:
>> Point of clarification -- the Wikimedia Foundation sends out press releases to international media, not just US media.  We have no plans to send out a press release on this issue.
>
> Of course, what I meant was that only the WMF sends press releases to
> US media, not that the WMF only sends press releases to US media.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l