Wikipedia in trouble with National Portrait Gallery

Unauthorised image uploads

Wikipedia in trouble with National Portrait Gallery

14 July 2009 15:35 GMT / By Amy-Mae Elliott

The latest mini-scandal to hit Wikipedia is that the National Portrait Gallery is beginning legal proceedings against the online encyclopaedia.

The gallery says 3000 images from its website have been uploaded unofficially to Wikipedia by a member of the public and without permission.

A spokesperson for the gallery told The Evening Standard: "In March 2009 over 3000 high-resolution files were appropriated from the National Portrait Gallery website and published on Wikipedia without permission".

"The Gallery is very concerned that potential loss of licensing income from the high-resolution files threatens its ability to reinvest in its digitisation programme and so make further images available".

The spokesperson has said that legal proceedings have begun after no-one at Wikipedia responded to their complaints.

"To date, Wikipedia has not responded to our requests to discuss the issue and so the National Portrait Gallery has been obliged to issue a lawyer's letter".

Read

Full tags
Biz, Wikipedia, National Portrait Gallery, Lawsuits, Websites
UK Shopping
Amazon.co.uk, play.com, pixmania.co.uk, Currys.co.uk, Dixons.co.uk, 7dayshop.com, ebay.co.uk
US Shopping
Amazon.com, bestbuy.com, ebay.com

share Subscribe to RSS feeds email story save story print story pdf

Comments

  • Wikipedia is one of the best humans inventions. Posted by Bob, UK
  • The story omits the important fact that all of those 3000 paintings are in the public domain. It is only the reproduction photos that NPG can claim copyright on, and it can only do so in the UK (and even there it is not clear that the claim is valid). In the US, where both Wikipeda and the threatened Wikimedia user reside, faithful reproductions are not copyrighable by the Bridgeman v. Corel decision.

    By prohibiting the public to take photos of these centuries-old public domain paintings, while at the same time prohibiting use of their own reproduction photos, the NPG effectively usurps what (according to copyright law) should be public property.

    Yet the NPG - and its digitisation programme - is largely funded by the same public that they take these works away from. The licensing income that they are so concerned about is less than 2.3% of its overall budget, according to the NPG's 2007/2008 annual report.
    Posted by Torben, Germany
  • NPG wrote to the user who uploaded those hi-res images, they have no intention and no reason for writing to WikiMedia Foundation (not WikiPedia) and in fact they didn't.

    Legal proceedings haven't yet been commenced. In case they do, it wouldn't be "against the online encyclopaedia" but against the user, since this kind of responsibility is personal in almost all modern countries.

    Since you quote the letter, one presumes you read it...

    Keeping on facts, the user lives in the USA where this "appropriation" is allowed.

    Very bad for NPG if they invested money upon rights which they cannot handle because in the public domain. Very worse if NPG was, and indeed it is, a public company (http://www.npg.org.uk/about/organisation.php) because if so they invested people's money to make business with PD works
    Posted by G, italy
  • The NPG is a nationally funded art gallery (not a commercial company) with a public service remit, which is to allow the public (anyone and everyone) free access to their collection both physically and increasingly online.The 3000 images are a fraction of the 120,000 or so the NPG are in the process of digitising and making available to net users everywhere not just in Britain. The gallery does not charge netizens to see those images on its own site. Where it does charge is if a commercial user, say someone who wants to print posters or postcards or some other commercial product a fee to use their images. That income though small goes to looking after the paintings themselves, funding the digitisation of the remainder of the collection etc. The NPG offered the WMF a wikipedia only license of low res version of it images with a link from wikipedia to its own high resolution images for those who needed more detail. Despite allowing fair use criteria of copyrighted images for articles, WMF refused the NPG's compromise, and insists on using the NPG images under GDFL. At a guess the NPG is not so much concerned with the WMF use of its images, but the fact that commercial entities can now attempt to use the WMF versions of NPG images commercially without recompensing the NPG for the costs of digitising the images and removing a source of income. My own thoughts in this is that the WMF has shot itself in the foot, since the copying of the images, the NPG has removed the high res versions of its images from its website, the fact that is their attitude and behaviour has jeorpardised the sharing of the remainder of the collection, and the collections of other institutions Posted by KTo288, UK

(Will not be published)

  (Next time sign in to bypass captcha)

Latest in Biz

Latest on Pocket-lint.com

About Pocket-lint

Pocket-lint is your one stop shop for gadgets, technology and consumer electronics, bringing you the low-down on the latest televisions, cameras, phones, GPS and much more. Whether it's learning about what's hot in the world of Apple, finding out about the latest home cinema kit from Samsung and Sony or merely seeing what not to buy, we have you covered. So check out our reviews, news, comment, hands-on photo galleries and videos. Enjoy.

Pocket-lint.com poll

Q. Do you want the Droid by Motorola?

Vote YES Vote NO

» LAST TIME
When asked Can iPhone games rival the PSP and DS? 52% said yes and 48% said no

Top 10 Broadband

Compare 50+
broadband packages

Home Broadband »

Top products

tip us on news

Rss feed

Follow us on Twitter