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 <dahsun@xxxxxxxxx>

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 <dgerard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: David Gerard <dgerard@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] "sue and be damned" FOI to NPG

> To: wikimediauk-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> Date: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 1:00 PM

> 2009/7/11 Dahsun <dahsun@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > 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
> wikimediauk-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>




_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org