A volunteer for the Wikimedia Foundation has been given a copyright infringement notice by the National Portrait Gallery, regarding images of paintings uploaded to Wikipedia.
As with most of Wikimedia's doings, the notice has been made public for all to see, and it makes for wince-inducing reading.
Essentially, the notice is addressed to Wikimedia volunteer contributer Derrick Coetzee and asks for all images of paintings that are in the National Portrait Gallery be taken off of Wikipedia by 20 July or further action will be taken.
Unsurprisingly, Coetzee is consulting his lawyer about what to do next, but if the images are taken down it will be a blow for the not-for-profit Wikipedia.
While at first glance it may look like Coetzee will have to bow to the pressure of the NPG, the case may not be so clear-cut, due to differing laws in the UK and US. While The National Portrait Gallery is UK-based, Coetzee resides in the US.
This has prompted a lawyer to tell The Register: "The copyright owner has to enforce the order in the US. It's possible to do, but it can be quite expensive."
Most unfortunate
A blogger interested in the Wikimedia Foundation, David Gerard, has written about the situation, explaining:
"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."
He also notes: "I can't see this ending well for the National Portrait Gallery, whatever happens."
The National Portrait Gallery has responded to this story. Read its response here.
This story has been updated
Via Wikimedia
Your comments (4) Click to add a new comment
passingby
July 14th 2009
4. Thank you Mr Chacksfield. However, I'm afraid I must point out another error. The amended version of this article says "A volunteer for the Wikimedia Foundation has been given a copyright infringement notice by the National Portrait Gallery"; of course, it might be better for Derrick Coetzee to clarify this himself, but I am very sure he is not associated with the Wikimedia Foundation, volunteer or otherwise. When Mr Coetzee said as a comment here, "I acted only as a volunteer contributor in this matter", I am very sure he meant as a volunteer to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons (the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons is that Commons is the place where most images used by Wikipedia get downloaded first, including the pictures in question).
Alert a moderator
marcchacksfield
July 14th 2009
3. Hi. Thanks for both of your comments. The story has been amended. 'dcoetzee' - please keep us updated regarding the outcome of this story. Marc.
Alert a moderator
dcoetzee
July 13th 2009
2. Hi, this is Derrick Coetzee. In addition to the correction about David Gerard, I should emphasise that I am not, and never have been a Mediawiki developer or employee of the Wikimedia Foundation, and cannot speak for them in an official capacity. I acted only as a volunteer contributor in this matter.
Alert a moderator
passingby
July 13th 2009
1. Mr Chacksfield, David Gerard is in no way associated with the Wikimedia Foundation. He is a self-described blogger on Wikipedia-related matters, nothing more.
Alert a moderator
Tell us what you think
You need to Log in or register to post comments