You realise of course that the early spike in Bing's usage (Bing beats Yahoo! For a day!) was because they inadvertently switched all users' IE6 default search back to Microsoft.
Because Google are not planning to eat their own dogfood on this one - the people creating Chrome OS aren't going to be using it. I mean, at least Google employees actually use Android phones.
Yep. And the invocation of the DMCA ignores the fact that, per DMCA, you can't sue for breaking the mechanism on an item whose copyright you don't own.
That's well out of date - I'm not with (the new) WMUK any more (must update page). But yes, you can be sure I will tell them precisely my links to the foundation ("a volunteer, not an employee, not an official spokesman, but I can help see what we can sensibly do").
My current aim is to lay grounds for negotiation.
Of course, the first step is to see if there's anyone sane there or if they're staffed by the art gallery equivalent of General Jack Ripper.
All US law apart from the Supreme Court saying "uh no" is "probably" by this criterion. The case is, as you note, firm enough to have had practical effect in the US.
(Even the stuff Congress puts out is "probably," c.f. Viacom's effects to nullify the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA by throwing stupendous amounts of money at it.)
Note also that Bridgeman v Corel draws on UK law in its reasoning, meaning sweat-of-the-brow copyright may not be a foregone conclusion in the UK either.
I'd like us (the UK taxpayer) to get this stuff out to the world, much as that other UK museum the V&A has been: invite the photographers in, let them go hog-wild (without flash or tripod) and ask that the results have the V&A's name attached. Result: increased publicity and incentive to visit.
Ah, no, I'm not. They could bring a suit in the UK if they threw enough money at it. Read their letter and what they're demanding: (a) that he undertake the impossible (b) that he enforce the impossible (c) that he get the WMF to do something NPG wants (d) or get sued in a foreign country in a court he can't attend except at great expense. It's hard to see what part of that isn't correctly described by the word "bullying."
Bridgeman v Corel - the photos are quite definitely not copyrighted in the US.
The NPG's letter acknowledges that the US uploader did nothing illegal in US law, and that they're just threatening legal action because they think they can.
Very little funding comes from sales of postcards. Most is from public donations - e.g. $5 million from a US donor recently. Who will quite definitely be getting Wikimedians asking him if trying to work around US law is really something he wanted his money spent on.
Nope - the uploader is in the US, the servers are in the US, the WMF is in the US. This was unambiguously legal in the US under well-established copyright law.
They're making threats because they think they can bully him anyway.
Bridgeman v Corel establishes firmly in US law that the photos are not in fact creative works, and that the images are public domain. The NPG's letter actually acknowledges this.
False. Wikipedia doesn't do "for Wikipedia" licensing, and can't - its mission is to make reusable content.
Also, you're saying the NPG has to lock up culture to promote it, and sue people who actually promote it. This doesn't actually make sense.
The NPG actually acknowledges in their letter that the poster's actions were entirely legal in America, and that they're making a threat just because they think they can.
The Wikimedia community and the WMF are absolutely on the side of these public domain images remaining in the public domain.
The NPG will be getting radioactive publicity from this. Imagine the NPG being known to American tourists as somewhere that sues Americans just because it thinks it can.
No, the images are unambiguously public domain in the US, no matter how much sweat of the brow went into them. Bridgeman v Corel. What the NPG is doing is basically copyfraud.
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.
Kim Jong-nam, the eldest son of North Korean Dear Leader Kim Jong-il, has confirmed reports of his younger brother Kim Jong-un succeeding his father, in an interview with Japanese NTV.
"The appointment of a successor is totally my father's decision. Jong-un is certainly the man for the job. Chip off the old block, he is. Who wouldn't want to inherit somewhere in as good shape as North Korea? Fantastic past, fantastic present, fantastic future. Who wouldn't choose military parades and announcing a 30% increase in mud pie production over drinking, whoring and gambling? I'm sure there'll be no war crimes trials for the lucky fellow in the hot seat when the hollow shell collapses. Because it won't, of course. And isn't hollow. We just feel the rest of the world isn't ready to share the bountiful socialist wealth flowing from our policy of Juche. Of course!"
Kim Jong-nam denied reports he had defected or was living in exile. "Macau and China are just great places. Not as great as North Korea, of course! No, no. I just like it here."
There has been much speculation over who would follow Mr Kim, who is thought to have suffered a stroke last year. North Korean officials were reportedly told to support Kim Jong-un after the North's 25 May nuclear test. "Certainly I haven't heard of any purges or midnight executions of perceived supporters of mine. Because I'm not seeking any. Or the job. No, no, Jong-un's your fellow. Fabulous bloke. 'Scuse me, just got to look up departure times for planes to Xinjiang, or perhaps deepest Siberia. Lovely to catch you, must do lunch, love ya babe!"
Speaking from experience, there's parental hormones as well. These convince you your child is enormously cute and charming and intelligent and creative, even while she's puking on you, producing trash cans full of shitty nappies and constantly crying while teething. "What a gorgeous, perfect little puke!" I actually thought this thought. Fortunately I was still capable of realising I was on internally-generated drugs at the time.
Of course, MY child is that intelligent and creative and wonderful. It's all the OTHER daddies who are deluded.
One thing I hadn't realised before I had a kid: every geek dreams of having their own artificial intelligence. With a kid, you get to watch a REAL intelligence develop, and it is in fact fascinating. In between the puke and shit and teething.
There's an inexhaustible supply of work thinking for people who can't or won't. (Sort of like there will always be work for sysadmins, because even here in the future nothing works.) The problem is that the work itself resembles being paid lots of money to dredge through sewage by hand.
Slashdot Mirror
You realise of course that the early spike in Bing's usage (Bing beats Yahoo! For a day!) was because they inadvertently switched all users' IE6 default search back to Microsoft.
Because Google are not planning to eat their own dogfood on this one - the people creating Chrome OS aren't going to be using it. I mean, at least Google employees actually use Android phones.
Much as camera phones can never seriously replace cameras. Except it turns out quite a lot of people can do without a "serious" camera in practice.
Yep. And the invocation of the DMCA ignores the fact that, per DMCA, you can't sue for breaking the mechanism on an item whose copyright you don't own.
That's well out of date - I'm not with (the new) WMUK any more (must update page). But yes, you can be sure I will tell them precisely my links to the foundation ("a volunteer, not an employee, not an official spokesman, but I can help see what we can sensibly do").
My current aim is to lay grounds for negotiation.
Of course, the first step is to see if there's anyone sane there or if they're staffed by the art gallery equivalent of General Jack Ripper.
Ten thousand pissed off Wikimedians are currently considering workarounds for this, I can assure you. Getting to court would itself be losing.
All US law apart from the Supreme Court saying "uh no" is "probably" by this criterion. The case is, as you note, firm enough to have had practical effect in the US.
(Even the stuff Congress puts out is "probably," c.f. Viacom's effects to nullify the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA by throwing stupendous amounts of money at it.)
Note also that Bridgeman v Corel draws on UK law in its reasoning, meaning sweat-of-the-brow copyright may not be a foregone conclusion in the UK either.
These claims on their part turn out not to factually be the case.
You do have a point there ;-)
I'd like us (the UK taxpayer) to get this stuff out to the world, much as that other UK museum the V&A has been: invite the photographers in, let them go hog-wild (without flash or tripod) and ask that the results have the V&A's name attached. Result: increased publicity and incentive to visit.
You did look where my address is, right?
Ah, no, I'm not. They could bring a suit in the UK if they threw enough money at it. Read their letter and what they're demanding: (a) that he undertake the impossible (b) that he enforce the impossible (c) that he get the WMF to do something NPG wants (d) or get sued in a foreign country in a court he can't attend except at great expense. It's hard to see what part of that isn't correctly described by the word "bullying."
They're taxpayer funded. It's letter to MPs time. "Say, how would you like the NPG to create an international incident?"
Bridgeman v Corel - the photos are quite definitely not copyrighted in the US.
The NPG's letter acknowledges that the US uploader did nothing illegal in US law, and that they're just threatening legal action because they think they can.
Very little funding comes from sales of postcards. Most is from public donations - e.g. $5 million from a US donor recently. Who will quite definitely be getting Wikimedians asking him if trying to work around US law is really something he wanted his money spent on.
The photos may be copyrighted under UK law. They are quite definitely not copyrighted under US law - Bridgeman v Corel.
Nope - the uploader is in the US, the servers are in the US, the WMF is in the US. This was unambiguously legal in the US under well-established copyright law.
They're making threats because they think they can bully him anyway.
Bridgeman v Corel establishes firmly in US law that the photos are not in fact creative works, and that the images are public domain. The NPG's letter actually acknowledges this.
False - Bridgeman v Corel. Mere sweat of the brow does not create a new copyright.
If you read the NPG's letter, they acknowledge that the uploader (an American) hasn't done anything against the law in the US. They're suing to bully.
False. Wikipedia doesn't do "for Wikipedia" licensing, and can't - its mission is to make reusable content.
Also, you're saying the NPG has to lock up culture to promote it, and sue people who actually promote it. This doesn't actually make sense.
The NPG actually acknowledges in their letter that the poster's actions were entirely legal in America, and that they're making a threat just because they think they can.
The Wikimedia community and the WMF are absolutely on the side of these public domain images remaining in the public domain.
The NPG will be getting radioactive publicity from this. Imagine the NPG being known to American tourists as somewhere that sues Americans just because it thinks it can.
No, the images are unambiguously public domain in the US, no matter how much sweat of the brow went into them. Bridgeman v Corel. What the NPG is doing is basically copyfraud.
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.
Kim Jong-nam, the eldest son of North Korean Dear Leader Kim Jong-il, has confirmed reports of his younger brother Kim Jong-un succeeding his father, in an interview with Japanese NTV.
"The appointment of a successor is totally my father's decision. Jong-un is certainly the man for the job. Chip off the old block, he is. Who wouldn't want to inherit somewhere in as good shape as North Korea? Fantastic past, fantastic present, fantastic future. Who wouldn't choose military parades and announcing a 30% increase in mud pie production over drinking, whoring and gambling? I'm sure there'll be no war crimes trials for the lucky fellow in the hot seat when the hollow shell collapses. Because it won't, of course. And isn't hollow. We just feel the rest of the world isn't ready to share the bountiful socialist wealth flowing from our policy of Juche. Of course!"
Kim Jong-nam denied reports he had defected or was living in exile. "Macau and China are just great places. Not as great as North Korea, of course! No, no. I just like it here."
There has been much speculation over who would follow Mr Kim, who is thought to have suffered a stroke last year. North Korean officials were reportedly told to support Kim Jong-un after the North's 25 May nuclear test. "Certainly I haven't heard of any purges or midnight executions of perceived supporters of mine. Because I'm not seeking any. Or the job. No, no, Jong-un's your fellow. Fabulous bloke. 'Scuse me, just got to look up departure times for planes to Xinjiang, or perhaps deepest Siberia. Lovely to catch you, must do lunch, love ya babe!"
Speaking from experience, there's parental hormones as well. These convince you your child is enormously cute and charming and intelligent and creative, even while she's puking on you, producing trash cans full of shitty nappies and constantly crying while teething. "What a gorgeous, perfect little puke!" I actually thought this thought. Fortunately I was still capable of realising I was on internally-generated drugs at the time.
Of course, MY child is that intelligent and creative and wonderful. It's all the OTHER daddies who are deluded.
One thing I hadn't realised before I had a kid: every geek dreams of having their own artificial intelligence. With a kid, you get to watch a REAL intelligence develop, and it is in fact fascinating. In between the puke and shit and teething.
It's after 2000! This is the future!
There's an inexhaustible supply of work thinking for people who can't or won't. (Sort of like there will always be work for sysadmins, because even here in the future nothing works.) The problem is that the work itself resembles being paid lots of money to dredge through sewage by hand.