Slashdot Mirror

Anyone else thing it EXTREMELY convenient that they found a living relative to the body they pulled out of the ground? I've a sister who does the genealogy for our family, and she's gone back to the late 18th century. Middle ages = no censuses, no births/deaths/marriages columns ... and the occasional child out of wedlock. So how the heck did they go back to the middle ages for a carpenter living in London?

And also - modern analysis of the Richard III painting that's contemporary show it to have been 'retouched', to add in the 'hump'. And yet the body found has a hump. http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw05304/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&role=sit&rNo=1

And then there's other accounts that say Richard's bones were tossed into the local river. So if that happened, someone dragged him out, rearranged them, got permission to bury them in the church.... Sorry, can't find the link. All sites seem to have been redacted.

I call nonsense on the whole thing. Leicester tourist office has a lot to answer!

The Museum has free entry?! That's excellent. Everyone in the entire world can just buy plane tickets to London and experience these masterpieces for themselves, free of charge! I hate to sound smarmy, but it's infuriating when they assert a copyright claim to these photographs, and then disallow any photography or video recording of their gallery (photography policy). If I wanted to get these images on Wikipedia, even though they're public domain works, it would be impossible, unless I smuggled in a camera and surreptitiously took photographs of each work of art.

If NPG's mission statement is more than lip service (link), and they actually do want to "promote through the medium of portraits the appreciation and understanding of the men and women who have made and are making British history and culture," this is a very curious way of demonstrating it. Flaunting your country's backwards copyright laws and keeping these portraits out of the hands of the millions who use Wikimedia sites to learn art history seems dirty and unreasonable.

The Museum has free entry?! That's excellent. Everyone in the entire world can just buy plane tickets to London and experience these masterpieces for themselves, free of charge! I hate to sound smarmy, but it's infuriating when they assert a copyright claim to these photographs, and then disallow any photography or video recording of their gallery (photography policy). If I wanted to get these images on Wikipedia, even though they're public domain works, it would be impossible, unless I smuggled in a camera and surreptitiously took photographs of each work of art.

If NPG's mission statement is more than lip service (link), and they actually do want to "promote through the medium of portraits the appreciation and understanding of the men and women who have made and are making British history and culture," this is a very curious way of demonstrating it. Flaunting your country's backwards copyright laws and keeping these portraits out of the hands of the millions who use Wikimedia sites to learn art history seems dirty and unreasonable.

Way to take everything at face value, kiddo.

http://www.npg.org.uk/

There, it takes a whopping five seconds to do your own research and not look like an idiot.

I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or serious (I'm leaning towards funny, this is /. after all. . .)
I don't care how great a photo you see of a work of art, it in no way is equal that work in person. Take this image of Richard III for example.
In person, this painting is truly stunning, the detail is absolutely beyond belief. However to see it require looking both closely and from a distance. I don't know of any photographic technique that can capture the level of detail, the changing perspective, and colors of a true masterpiece. I say this a photographer who has tried to capture some art on film, and never been successful (though this could say more about my skill as a photographer, than the challenges of this technique).
And lastly, there is something about a museum that is sacred (it does derive from "temple of the muses" after all.) The space is holy, a shrine to Man's limitless potential and ability, as well his infinite inspiration found in the wonders of the Universe.

He had extremely good cause to "know or believe" the images public domain.

Every page he copied from had a link "Use this image on your website". It links to this page:

http://www.npg.org.uk/business/images/use-on-web.php

The first two lines read, "Do the right thing! You need permission to use our images on your website."

While he may indeed have had reason to believe the images were in the public domain, I don;t think it'd take an exceptionally skilled lawyer to demonstrate that he also had "reason to believe" the images may be copyright, in the UK at least.

Personally I would not like to be in a criminal trial facing a possibility of jail and relying on my lawyer to argue that despite a notice beside each of 3,000 images I did not have any reason to believe they may be copyrighted. You may feel differently.

They are thus preserving their value/investment in these pictures. If there are not any legitimate copies then people need to visit. Note that entrance is free, but I assume that funding of the NPG is, partly, dependent on the number of visitors.

I suspect that if these pictures are loaned out (to some other gallery) a condition of the loan will be 'no public domain pictures'.

The only legitimate way that we have of getting these 'free' is to wait until the photos in dispute fall out of copyright.

Citation here http://www.npg.org.uk/assets/files/pdf/accounts/npgaccounts2007-8.pdf

Income from the picture library was £378,000 [page 46] out of total income of £16,610,000 [page 39]. That's about 2.3%.

Page numbers are adobe acrobat page numbers, not the number. at the bottom of the page.

Given they control their own reproductions of the pictures, would it be acceptable for them to deny visitors the right to take their own photographs? I think not.

They think otherwise
I think that, as a government funded institution, it should be their mission to spread the art that they exhibit and do everything they can to spark people's interest in it. Yet art and education may not be their main concern if they continue to restrict access to these paintings as they do right now. And that, regardless of the copyright issue, is morally wrong - at least in my opinion. What is happening here ist that government money is used against the people instead of for them, which I find quite outrageous.

For several years, the National Portrait Gallery has claimed copyright over public domain images in their possession. Wikimedia has ignored these claims, occasionally laughing. (Bridgeman v. Corel. Sweat of the brow is not creation in US law; go away.) Our official stance in this time has been "sue and be damned."

So the National Portrait Gallery has tried. Here's their letter. A lollipop for every misconception or unlikely or impossible demand. This was sent after (so they claim) the WMF ignored their latest missive. The editor they sent the threat to is ... an American.

A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over uploading images that are public domain in the US to an American server — unambiguously, in established US law, not a copyright violation of any sort. I wonder how the case will go.

The letter is particularly odious in that it admits that his actions were completely within US law, but threatens to make his life a misery just because they think they can unless he (an individual) can actually make the WMF do something the NPG wants. This is actually worse than the RIAA.

It's most unfortunate that the National Portrait Gallery considers this in any way sensible behaviour, considering how well we've been going with museum partnerships for Wikipedia Loves Art — the V&A were fantastically helpful and lovely people, who realise that spreading their name and exhibits far and wide is much more likely to get them money and fame than claims of copyright over works hundreds of years old.

I can't see this ending well for the National Portrait Gallery, whatever happens. Anyone who could speak on their behalf at this level won't be in until Monday; I wonder if they'll be surprised at the people politely queueing with pitchforks and torches.

I'll be calling them 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 bloggers and, if interested, journalists may wish to do the same, to establish what their consistent response is.

http://www.npg.org.uk/business/images/use-on-web.php

----

Using our images on websites

Do the right thing!

You need permission to use our images on your website.

Here's how to apply (it's easy):

      1. Tell us which images you would like to use (e.g. NPG 1, William Shakespeare).
      2. Tell us how you would like to feature the image, and how long for.
      3. Tell is whether your website is personal, academic, commercial or corporate.
      4. Provide us with the URL and your postal address.
      5. Let us know who is sponsoring the site (i.e. who pays the bills!).

Why not send your application now, by e-mail to rightsandimages@npg.org.uk.

        * We will then reply, to let you know if permission is available.
        * We will also let you know how much it is going to cost.
        * If you confirm you order in writing and provide full payment, we will fulfil your order as quickly as possible and supply the images with a licence to use them in your project.
        * The specific terms of the licence are set out in the invoice (you'll need to get further permission if you want to use the images in any other way) while the general terms are spelt out carefully in our terms & conditions.

For a guide to our rates, or if you would like more details before applying, download our standard pdf website information pack comprising

        * an introduction
        * an application form
        * a table of current rates
        * our full terms & conditions

----

  Maybe I'll get sued for copying their FAQ text now...

Here is an image of an 1832 William Henry Mote engraving that was "probably" based on a work by Frank Stone, the artist who is supposed to have painted the original portrait. The image is rather small, but there is a striking resemblance to the painting depicted in the article.

I suspect that courts will be very reluctant to use copyright laws to give even the merest hint of suppressing political speech.