2009/7/12 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxw...@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 <gmaxw...@gmail.com> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Tom Maaswinkel<tom.maaswin...@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
