<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_17_085244</id>
	<title>New Developments In NPG/Wikipedia Lawsuit Threat</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1247832360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654" rel="nofollow">Raul654</a> writes <i>"Last week, it was reported that the UK's National Portrait Gallery had <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/11/1239244/UKs-National-Portrait-Gallery-Threatens-To-Sue-Wikipedia-User">threatened a lawsuit against an American Wikipedian</a> for uploading pictures from the NPG's website to Wikipedia. The uploaded pictures are clearly in the public domain in the United States. (In the US, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman\_Art\_Library\_v.\_Corel\_Corp.">copies of public domain works are also in the public domain</a>. UK law on the matter is unclear.) Since then, there have been several developments: EFF staff attorney <a href="http://www.eff.org/about/staff/fred-von-lohmann">Fred von Lohmann</a> has <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dcoetzee/NPG\_legal\_threat&amp;diff=23722719&amp;oldid=23560170">taken on the case</a> pro-bono; Eric Moeller, Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director, <a href="http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/07/16/protecting-the-public-domain-and-sharing-our-cultural-heritage/">has responded to the NPG's allegations</a> in a post on the WMF blog; and the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies has <a href="http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=865802">weighed in on the dispute</a> in favor of the NPG."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Raul654 writes " Last week , it was reported that the UK 's National Portrait Gallery had threatened a lawsuit against an American Wikipedian for uploading pictures from the NPG 's website to Wikipedia .
The uploaded pictures are clearly in the public domain in the United States .
( In the US , copies of public domain works are also in the public domain .
UK law on the matter is unclear .
) Since then , there have been several developments : EFF staff attorney Fred von Lohmann has taken on the case pro-bono ; Eric Moeller , Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director , has responded to the NPG 's allegations in a post on the WMF blog ; and the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies has weighed in on the dispute in favor of the NPG .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Raul654 writes "Last week, it was reported that the UK's National Portrait Gallery had threatened a lawsuit against an American Wikipedian for uploading pictures from the NPG's website to Wikipedia.
The uploaded pictures are clearly in the public domain in the United States.
(In the US, copies of public domain works are also in the public domain.
UK law on the matter is unclear.
) Since then, there have been several developments: EFF staff attorney Fred von Lohmann has taken on the case pro-bono; Eric Moeller, Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director, has responded to the NPG's allegations in a post on the WMF blog; and the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies has weighed in on the dispute in favor of the NPG.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728769</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a Robin Hood story</title>
	<author>JustinOpinion</author>
	<datestamp>1247841060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But Wikimedia's position is equally valid. The images are public domain (in the US) and they are trying to distribute them as widely as possible.<br> <br>

So, unless you're suggesting the US change its law to accommodate to UK, your counterargument amounts to "Wikimedia should just be nice and back off so that the museums can keep this revenue stream, which supports their useful work." But this argument has many problems: (1) If it's just based on "being nice", even if Wikimedia backs off, someone else can just (legally) go ahead and do it instead (and it could be a non-profit or some US corporation...); (2) What makes museums special? Should we also "be nice" to companies and not distribute public domain works that are related to them, because then their profits would be reduced? (3) If the whole argument is based on "being nice" then instead of asking Wikimedia to be nice and back off, why not just argue that people should be nice and donate to the museums more? Why is one kind of "just be nice!" more valid than another?<br> <br>

On the other hand, perhaps you are suggesting that reproductions of public domain works should themselves be subject to copyright, as they apparently are in the UK. I disagree with this because it becomes yet another way to skew the copyright balance in favor of the copyright holders. Could Disney arbitrarily re-extend the copyright to their movies by making a copy of their copies? If so, in what sense do copyright terms mean anything at all anymore? At some point how can we even tell the difference between "which copy" this is, and how long the term is. Even with respect to physical objects, can the museum just take new photographs of the paintings in 70 years, and thus reset the copyright on those reproductions? Again if we have a JPEG of the 2008 digital photo and a JPEG of the 2108 digital photo, how do we sensibly know which one is still under copyright? Or are we just supposed to abandon that whole "public domain" thing and accept that art in the modern age is forever commercial and never cultural?<br> <br>

I understand the appeal to our "be nice" natures by saying that someone has to pay for digitization. We all benefit from such efforts. But in my opinion this should then mean an appeal to the public (by museums or Wikimedia or whoever) for the funds necessary to preserve the art. It should not mean restrictive laws. If you are really convinced that the public supports art preservation but won't bother spending money for it without a law... then argue for a law that sends tax dollars to art preservation (with results being in public domain). The total burden on society on that case will be lower, since at least corporations won't be able to extend copyrights forever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But Wikimedia 's position is equally valid .
The images are public domain ( in the US ) and they are trying to distribute them as widely as possible .
So , unless you 're suggesting the US change its law to accommodate to UK , your counterargument amounts to " Wikimedia should just be nice and back off so that the museums can keep this revenue stream , which supports their useful work .
" But this argument has many problems : ( 1 ) If it 's just based on " being nice " , even if Wikimedia backs off , someone else can just ( legally ) go ahead and do it instead ( and it could be a non-profit or some US corporation... ) ; ( 2 ) What makes museums special ?
Should we also " be nice " to companies and not distribute public domain works that are related to them , because then their profits would be reduced ?
( 3 ) If the whole argument is based on " being nice " then instead of asking Wikimedia to be nice and back off , why not just argue that people should be nice and donate to the museums more ?
Why is one kind of " just be nice !
" more valid than another ?
On the other hand , perhaps you are suggesting that reproductions of public domain works should themselves be subject to copyright , as they apparently are in the UK .
I disagree with this because it becomes yet another way to skew the copyright balance in favor of the copyright holders .
Could Disney arbitrarily re-extend the copyright to their movies by making a copy of their copies ?
If so , in what sense do copyright terms mean anything at all anymore ?
At some point how can we even tell the difference between " which copy " this is , and how long the term is .
Even with respect to physical objects , can the museum just take new photographs of the paintings in 70 years , and thus reset the copyright on those reproductions ?
Again if we have a JPEG of the 2008 digital photo and a JPEG of the 2108 digital photo , how do we sensibly know which one is still under copyright ?
Or are we just supposed to abandon that whole " public domain " thing and accept that art in the modern age is forever commercial and never cultural ?
I understand the appeal to our " be nice " natures by saying that someone has to pay for digitization .
We all benefit from such efforts .
But in my opinion this should then mean an appeal to the public ( by museums or Wikimedia or whoever ) for the funds necessary to preserve the art .
It should not mean restrictive laws .
If you are really convinced that the public supports art preservation but wo n't bother spending money for it without a law... then argue for a law that sends tax dollars to art preservation ( with results being in public domain ) .
The total burden on society on that case will be lower , since at least corporations wo n't be able to extend copyrights forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Wikimedia's position is equally valid.
The images are public domain (in the US) and they are trying to distribute them as widely as possible.
So, unless you're suggesting the US change its law to accommodate to UK, your counterargument amounts to "Wikimedia should just be nice and back off so that the museums can keep this revenue stream, which supports their useful work.
" But this argument has many problems: (1) If it's just based on "being nice", even if Wikimedia backs off, someone else can just (legally) go ahead and do it instead (and it could be a non-profit or some US corporation...); (2) What makes museums special?
Should we also "be nice" to companies and not distribute public domain works that are related to them, because then their profits would be reduced?
(3) If the whole argument is based on "being nice" then instead of asking Wikimedia to be nice and back off, why not just argue that people should be nice and donate to the museums more?
Why is one kind of "just be nice!
" more valid than another?
On the other hand, perhaps you are suggesting that reproductions of public domain works should themselves be subject to copyright, as they apparently are in the UK.
I disagree with this because it becomes yet another way to skew the copyright balance in favor of the copyright holders.
Could Disney arbitrarily re-extend the copyright to their movies by making a copy of their copies?
If so, in what sense do copyright terms mean anything at all anymore?
At some point how can we even tell the difference between "which copy" this is, and how long the term is.
Even with respect to physical objects, can the museum just take new photographs of the paintings in 70 years, and thus reset the copyright on those reproductions?
Again if we have a JPEG of the 2008 digital photo and a JPEG of the 2108 digital photo, how do we sensibly know which one is still under copyright?
Or are we just supposed to abandon that whole "public domain" thing and accept that art in the modern age is forever commercial and never cultural?
I understand the appeal to our "be nice" natures by saying that someone has to pay for digitization.
We all benefit from such efforts.
But in my opinion this should then mean an appeal to the public (by museums or Wikimedia or whoever) for the funds necessary to preserve the art.
It should not mean restrictive laws.
If you are really convinced that the public supports art preservation but won't bother spending money for it without a law... then argue for a law that sends tax dollars to art preservation (with results being in public domain).
The total burden on society on that case will be lower, since at least corporations won't be able to extend copyrights forever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28732633</id>
	<title>Re:Try doing the same in the US</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1247857440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If US law is so clear (that copies of public domain works are themselves public domain), then can anyone explain to me why Getty Images charges me full whack for pictures of works of art from days gone by; and gives me chapter and verse about what I can do with the images?</p></div></blockquote><p>Because they can.  Just because their claim wouldn't hold up in court doesn't prevent them from making it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If US law is so clear ( that copies of public domain works are themselves public domain ) , then can anyone explain to me why Getty Images charges me full whack for pictures of works of art from days gone by ; and gives me chapter and verse about what I can do with the images ? Because they can .
Just because their claim would n't hold up in court does n't prevent them from making it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If US law is so clear (that copies of public domain works are themselves public domain), then can anyone explain to me why Getty Images charges me full whack for pictures of works of art from days gone by; and gives me chapter and verse about what I can do with the images?Because they can.
Just because their claim wouldn't hold up in court doesn't prevent them from making it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28737271</id>
	<title>Re:Low tech solution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247840280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be the smart thing to do...</p><p>I can't believe Wikipedia are trying to defend it. The photos themselves are copyright. The painting aren't. You can't just go and copy someones photos. They are creative because that person had to capture the photo and set the lighting etc. There is no way two people taking the same photo of the same painting would result in identical images.</p><p>Do you think that just because a work falls into public domain, that you can then copy everyone who creates a deriviative of it? No. You can only copy the original.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be the smart thing to do...I ca n't believe Wikipedia are trying to defend it .
The photos themselves are copyright .
The painting are n't .
You ca n't just go and copy someones photos .
They are creative because that person had to capture the photo and set the lighting etc .
There is no way two people taking the same photo of the same painting would result in identical images.Do you think that just because a work falls into public domain , that you can then copy everyone who creates a deriviative of it ?
No. You can only copy the original .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be the smart thing to do...I can't believe Wikipedia are trying to defend it.
The photos themselves are copyright.
The painting aren't.
You can't just go and copy someones photos.
They are creative because that person had to capture the photo and set the lighting etc.
There is no way two people taking the same photo of the same painting would result in identical images.Do you think that just because a work falls into public domain, that you can then copy everyone who creates a deriviative of it?
No. You can only copy the original.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729725</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a Robin Hood story</title>
	<author>random coward</author>
	<datestamp>1247845140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real problem is the restrictions on photography that are placed by these museums to protect the value of their own digitized images and book sales. There is no need to pay people to come and digitize their gallery. They have to pay people so that they can control the output. I am sure that there are enough volunteers that would be willing to go and digitize the works on display at the galleries and submit them to wikipedia if the galleries/museums didn't prohibit that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem is the restrictions on photography that are placed by these museums to protect the value of their own digitized images and book sales .
There is no need to pay people to come and digitize their gallery .
They have to pay people so that they can control the output .
I am sure that there are enough volunteers that would be willing to go and digitize the works on display at the galleries and submit them to wikipedia if the galleries/museums did n't prohibit that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem is the restrictions on photography that are placed by these museums to protect the value of their own digitized images and book sales.
There is no need to pay people to come and digitize their gallery.
They have to pay people so that they can control the output.
I am sure that there are enough volunteers that would be willing to go and digitize the works on display at the galleries and submit them to wikipedia if the galleries/museums didn't prohibit that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730153</id>
	<title>Copyright protects originality, not hard work.</title>
	<author>dpbsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1247846940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Feist versus Rural Telephone Company, the court commented that copyright protects originality, not hard work. If the purpose of a photograph is to be a faithful rendition of a painting, how can it possibly have copyright protection? It does not add anything creative to the painting. It does not riff on it, it does not create a derivative work. The more effort that is expended on it, the more it becomes a high-fidelity copy of the original, and common sense says that would make it even less copyrightable than an amateur snapshot, that might "creatively" include keystone distortion or a bit of the frame or reflections off the glass.</p><p>The innumerable \_parodies\_ of, say, Grant Wood's "American Gothic" are surely copyrightable. But if a faithful copy of the original can be copyrighted, this is something new and pernicious in the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Feist versus Rural Telephone Company , the court commented that copyright protects originality , not hard work .
If the purpose of a photograph is to be a faithful rendition of a painting , how can it possibly have copyright protection ?
It does not add anything creative to the painting .
It does not riff on it , it does not create a derivative work .
The more effort that is expended on it , the more it becomes a high-fidelity copy of the original , and common sense says that would make it even less copyrightable than an amateur snapshot , that might " creatively " include keystone distortion or a bit of the frame or reflections off the glass.The innumerable \ _parodies \ _ of , say , Grant Wood 's " American Gothic " are surely copyrightable .
But if a faithful copy of the original can be copyrighted , this is something new and pernicious in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Feist versus Rural Telephone Company, the court commented that copyright protects originality, not hard work.
If the purpose of a photograph is to be a faithful rendition of a painting, how can it possibly have copyright protection?
It does not add anything creative to the painting.
It does not riff on it, it does not create a derivative work.
The more effort that is expended on it, the more it becomes a high-fidelity copy of the original, and common sense says that would make it even less copyrightable than an amateur snapshot, that might "creatively" include keystone distortion or a bit of the frame or reflections off the glass.The innumerable \_parodies\_ of, say, Grant Wood's "American Gothic" are surely copyrightable.
But if a faithful copy of the original can be copyrighted, this is something new and pernicious in the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28731639</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures versus digital photos...</title>
	<author>xelah</author>
	<datestamp>1247853240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It should \_NOT\_ be covered by copyright.</p></div><p>
Why? Maybe it's not creative...but so what? US law may not create copyright in that case, but there's no fundamental reason for that to be true and other countries are free to make other legislative choices. Copyright's purpose is to benefit the whole of society by making it possible and profitable to produce easily copied products. It'll never succeed perfectly - it'll grant monopolies on some works which would have been produced anyway, for example - but its imperfections don't come from an artistic vs non-artistic distinction.
</p><p>
Besides, do we really need to stretch definitions so that software gets protection because it's artistic or creative, when most (ordinary) people wouldn't regard it as particularly either? Granting copyright protection as a result of the exercise of sufficient skill solves that problem, as well as extending copyright to a class of works which have exactly the same economic characteristics as artistic work, and is an entirely reasonable choice. It also happens to be part of UK law, which is presumably why the NPG believe they have UK copyright.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It should \ _NOT \ _ be covered by copyright .
Why ? Maybe it 's not creative...but so what ?
US law may not create copyright in that case , but there 's no fundamental reason for that to be true and other countries are free to make other legislative choices .
Copyright 's purpose is to benefit the whole of society by making it possible and profitable to produce easily copied products .
It 'll never succeed perfectly - it 'll grant monopolies on some works which would have been produced anyway , for example - but its imperfections do n't come from an artistic vs non-artistic distinction .
Besides , do we really need to stretch definitions so that software gets protection because it 's artistic or creative , when most ( ordinary ) people would n't regard it as particularly either ?
Granting copyright protection as a result of the exercise of sufficient skill solves that problem , as well as extending copyright to a class of works which have exactly the same economic characteristics as artistic work , and is an entirely reasonable choice .
It also happens to be part of UK law , which is presumably why the NPG believe they have UK copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should \_NOT\_ be covered by copyright.
Why? Maybe it's not creative...but so what?
US law may not create copyright in that case, but there's no fundamental reason for that to be true and other countries are free to make other legislative choices.
Copyright's purpose is to benefit the whole of society by making it possible and profitable to produce easily copied products.
It'll never succeed perfectly - it'll grant monopolies on some works which would have been produced anyway, for example - but its imperfections don't come from an artistic vs non-artistic distinction.
Besides, do we really need to stretch definitions so that software gets protection because it's artistic or creative, when most (ordinary) people wouldn't regard it as particularly either?
Granting copyright protection as a result of the exercise of sufficient skill solves that problem, as well as extending copyright to a class of works which have exactly the same economic characteristics as artistic work, and is an entirely reasonable choice.
It also happens to be part of UK law, which is presumably why the NPG believe they have UK copyright.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728841</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a Robin Hood story</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1247841360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hold up there! Most museums and libraries are non-profits that do this sort of stuff as a public service and WANT the general public to have as much access as possible to their material (that's what Wikipedia is talking about when they mention partnering with other museums and libraries). They make their money through donations, admissions, and selling physical goods in the museum gift shop.
</p><p>
The NPG is acting here more like a for-profit company. They're basically holding these original works hostage (without rewarding the ORIGINAL creators anything for their derivative works, I might add) and objecting when anyone else dares tread on their moneymakers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hold up there !
Most museums and libraries are non-profits that do this sort of stuff as a public service and WANT the general public to have as much access as possible to their material ( that 's what Wikipedia is talking about when they mention partnering with other museums and libraries ) .
They make their money through donations , admissions , and selling physical goods in the museum gift shop .
The NPG is acting here more like a for-profit company .
They 're basically holding these original works hostage ( without rewarding the ORIGINAL creators anything for their derivative works , I might add ) and objecting when anyone else dares tread on their moneymakers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hold up there!
Most museums and libraries are non-profits that do this sort of stuff as a public service and WANT the general public to have as much access as possible to their material (that's what Wikipedia is talking about when they mention partnering with other museums and libraries).
They make their money through donations, admissions, and selling physical goods in the museum gift shop.
The NPG is acting here more like a for-profit company.
They're basically holding these original works hostage (without rewarding the ORIGINAL creators anything for their derivative works, I might add) and objecting when anyone else dares tread on their moneymakers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730073</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a Robin Hood story</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247846580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Defenders of the Wikimedia Foundation say the images are in the public domain (even though they aren't under UK law)</i></p><p>They're a US company on US soil using US servers. How does British law apply? Next we'll have the French and Germas suing the skinhead sites for their holocaust denial, and have the FBI arresting dopers in Amsterdam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Defenders of the Wikimedia Foundation say the images are in the public domain ( even though they are n't under UK law ) They 're a US company on US soil using US servers .
How does British law apply ?
Next we 'll have the French and Germas suing the skinhead sites for their holocaust denial , and have the FBI arresting dopers in Amsterdam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Defenders of the Wikimedia Foundation say the images are in the public domain (even though they aren't under UK law)They're a US company on US soil using US servers.
How does British law apply?
Next we'll have the French and Germas suing the skinhead sites for their holocaust denial, and have the FBI arresting dopers in Amsterdam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729719</id>
	<title>Re:NPG = Free Entry</title>
	<author>Richard W.M. Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1247845140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NPG gets free entry out of taxes.  It was a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1132161.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">Labour manifesto commitment</a> [bbc.co.uk].
</p><p>
As a UK taxpayer, I already paid for the NPG free entry <b>and</b> for
them to digitize these paintings.  Levying a secret tax (ie. copyright)
is not the way to get the NPG out of financial staits - if they need more
money, get it through the usual bargaining with the Treasury, government
and the people.
</p><p>Rich.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NPG gets free entry out of taxes .
It was a Labour manifesto commitment [ bbc.co.uk ] .
As a UK taxpayer , I already paid for the NPG free entry and for them to digitize these paintings .
Levying a secret tax ( ie .
copyright ) is not the way to get the NPG out of financial staits - if they need more money , get it through the usual bargaining with the Treasury , government and the people .
Rich .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NPG gets free entry out of taxes.
It was a Labour manifesto commitment [bbc.co.uk].
As a UK taxpayer, I already paid for the NPG free entry and for
them to digitize these paintings.
Levying a secret tax (ie.
copyright)
is not the way to get the NPG out of financial staits - if they need more
money, get it through the usual bargaining with the Treasury, government
and the people.
Rich.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28727965</id>
	<title>shao khan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247836080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let. Mortal Kombat. Begin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let .
Mortal Kombat .
Begin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let.
Mortal Kombat.
Begin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28735009</id>
	<title>Re:Difficult Case</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1247824980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm seriously torn here about whether I support the museum or the little guy. I don't think anyone would argue that the original pictures are in the public domain but that isn't what is being shown on Wikipedia, what is getting shown there is a photograph of a public domain work. I think it's fair to argue that a non-trivial amount of work went into taking these photographs and therefore they fall under copyright legislation.</p></div><p>It's fair to argue that they <em>should</em>.  But in the US, at least, you can't argue that they <em>do</em>.  The Supreme Court has explicitly held that copyright is for creativity only, and effort or technical expertise are irrelevant.  (In the UK, it's more arguable.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm seriously torn here about whether I support the museum or the little guy .
I do n't think anyone would argue that the original pictures are in the public domain but that is n't what is being shown on Wikipedia , what is getting shown there is a photograph of a public domain work .
I think it 's fair to argue that a non-trivial amount of work went into taking these photographs and therefore they fall under copyright legislation.It 's fair to argue that they should .
But in the US , at least , you ca n't argue that they do .
The Supreme Court has explicitly held that copyright is for creativity only , and effort or technical expertise are irrelevant .
( In the UK , it 's more arguable .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm seriously torn here about whether I support the museum or the little guy.
I don't think anyone would argue that the original pictures are in the public domain but that isn't what is being shown on Wikipedia, what is getting shown there is a photograph of a public domain work.
I think it's fair to argue that a non-trivial amount of work went into taking these photographs and therefore they fall under copyright legislation.It's fair to argue that they should.
But in the US, at least, you can't argue that they do.
The Supreme Court has explicitly held that copyright is for creativity only, and effort or technical expertise are irrelevant.
(In the UK, it's more arguable.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28734369</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures versus digital photos...</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1247822160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>English law sides with you, and the gallery, American law sides with Wikipedia.</p></div><p>To be precise, there's no clear precedent in UK courts, and nobody's quite sure how the claim would play out in the UK.  At least as far as I can gather.  Of course, NPG and their allies will say that UK law is on their side, if there's any doubt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>English law sides with you , and the gallery , American law sides with Wikipedia.To be precise , there 's no clear precedent in UK courts , and nobody 's quite sure how the claim would play out in the UK .
At least as far as I can gather .
Of course , NPG and their allies will say that UK law is on their side , if there 's any doubt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>English law sides with you, and the gallery, American law sides with Wikipedia.To be precise, there's no clear precedent in UK courts, and nobody's quite sure how the claim would play out in the UK.
At least as far as I can gather.
Of course, NPG and their allies will say that UK law is on their side, if there's any doubt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28735431</id>
	<title>Why perpetuate bad ideas?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247827620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; And a certain Russian programmer was arrested and jailed in the US for things he did in Russia that were legal there... remember that one ?</p><p>I assume you mean <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry\_Sklyarov" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Dmitry Sklyarov</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p><p>&gt; Why should the reverse not apply ?</p><p>Because it was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; And a certain Russian programmer was arrested and jailed in the US for things he did in Russia that were legal there... remember that one ? I assume you mean Dmitry Sklyarov [ wikipedia.org ] ? &gt; Why should the reverse not apply ? Because it was a bad idea then and it 's a bad idea now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; And a certain Russian programmer was arrested and jailed in the US for things he did in Russia that were legal there... remember that one ?I assume you mean Dmitry Sklyarov [wikipedia.org]?&gt; Why should the reverse not apply ?Because it was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729165</id>
	<title>I received this reply when I complained about this</title>
	<author>haggisbrain</author>
	<datestamp>1247842740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you for taking the time to contact the National Portrait Gallery. Please see below the Gallery's position statement:



The National Portrait Gallery is very strongly committed to giving access to its Collection. In the past five years the Gallery has spent around &pound;1 million digitising its Collection to make it widely available for study and enjoyment. We have so far made available on our website more than 60,000 digital images, which have attracted millions of users, and we believe this extensive programme is of great public benefit.



The Gallery supports Wikipedia in its aim of making knowledge widely available and we would be happy for the site to use our low-resolution images, sufficient for most forms of public access, subject to safeguards.



However, 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. It is one of the Gallery's primary purposes to make as much of the Collection available as possible for the public to view.



Digitisation involves huge costs including research, cataloguing, conservation and highly-skilled photography. Images then need to be made available on the Gallery website as part of a structured and authoritative database.



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. The Gallery remains willing to enter into a dialogue with Wikipedia.



This statement will be published on the National Portrait Gallery's website in due course.



Once again, thank you for your feedback.



I do hope that you will be able to visit the National Portrait Gallery both online (www.npg.org.uk - where visitors can freely view more than 60,000 low resolution digital images of works in the Collection) and in person in the near future.



Yours sincerely,



Helen</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for taking the time to contact the National Portrait Gallery .
Please see below the Gallery 's position statement : The National Portrait Gallery is very strongly committed to giving access to its Collection .
In the past five years the Gallery has spent around   1 million digitising its Collection to make it widely available for study and enjoyment .
We have so far made available on our website more than 60,000 digital images , which have attracted millions of users , and we believe this extensive programme is of great public benefit .
The Gallery supports Wikipedia in its aim of making knowledge widely available and we would be happy for the site to use our low-resolution images , sufficient for most forms of public access , subject to safeguards .
However , 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 .
It is one of the Gallery 's primary purposes to make as much of the Collection available as possible for the public to view .
Digitisation involves huge costs including research , cataloguing , conservation and highly-skilled photography .
Images then need to be made available on the Gallery website as part of a structured and authoritative database .
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 .
The Gallery remains willing to enter into a dialogue with Wikipedia .
This statement will be published on the National Portrait Gallery 's website in due course .
Once again , thank you for your feedback .
I do hope that you will be able to visit the National Portrait Gallery both online ( www.npg.org.uk - where visitors can freely view more than 60,000 low resolution digital images of works in the Collection ) and in person in the near future .
Yours sincerely , Helen</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for taking the time to contact the National Portrait Gallery.
Please see below the Gallery's position statement:



The National Portrait Gallery is very strongly committed to giving access to its Collection.
In the past five years the Gallery has spent around £1 million digitising its Collection to make it widely available for study and enjoyment.
We have so far made available on our website more than 60,000 digital images, which have attracted millions of users, and we believe this extensive programme is of great public benefit.
The Gallery supports Wikipedia in its aim of making knowledge widely available and we would be happy for the site to use our low-resolution images, sufficient for most forms of public access, subject to safeguards.
However, 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.
It is one of the Gallery's primary purposes to make as much of the Collection available as possible for the public to view.
Digitisation involves huge costs including research, cataloguing, conservation and highly-skilled photography.
Images then need to be made available on the Gallery website as part of a structured and authoritative database.
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.
The Gallery remains willing to enter into a dialogue with Wikipedia.
This statement will be published on the National Portrait Gallery's website in due course.
Once again, thank you for your feedback.
I do hope that you will be able to visit the National Portrait Gallery both online (www.npg.org.uk - where visitors can freely view more than 60,000 low resolution digital images of works in the Collection) and in person in the near future.
Yours sincerely,



Helen</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728127</id>
	<title>It's a photo of a painting!</title>
	<author>Rik Sweeney</author>
	<datestamp>1247837460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even though I can see where the problem is since UK law is unclear in this matter, it is still a photo of a painting and will never compare to the real thing.</p><p>I've seen loads of photos of the Mona Lisa, but does that mean if I was in the Louvre* would I not go and see it? Of course I would, because I'd want to see the genuine article.</p><p>*It's in the Louvre isn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though I can see where the problem is since UK law is unclear in this matter , it is still a photo of a painting and will never compare to the real thing.I 've seen loads of photos of the Mona Lisa , but does that mean if I was in the Louvre * would I not go and see it ?
Of course I would , because I 'd want to see the genuine article .
* It 's in the Louvre is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though I can see where the problem is since UK law is unclear in this matter, it is still a photo of a painting and will never compare to the real thing.I've seen loads of photos of the Mona Lisa, but does that mean if I was in the Louvre* would I not go and see it?
Of course I would, because I'd want to see the genuine article.
*It's in the Louvre isn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728417</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a Robin Hood story</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1247839260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Defenders of the NPG say the images are aren't in the public domain (even though they are under US law)</i></p><p>Fixed that for you.</p><p><i>If all museum images were simply appropriated by file-sharers under the rationale that they *should* be in the public domain, pretty soon there wouldn't be any museum willing to pay for the digitization of important works, and we'd all be worse off. </i></p><p>Wikimedia are more than willing to cooperate with museums - the NPG just doesn't want to. That isn't an argument for granting copyright to public domain images. Copyright is about originality, not effort. Museums have plenty of ways to make money - changing world-wide laws to grant copyright to images that have been in the public domain for hundreds of years is not one of them.</p><p>And whilst it's plausible to think that people downloading an mp3 do so instead of buying a CD, do you really think that "filesharers" with portraits are going to result in people no longer visiting museums?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Defenders of the NPG say the images are are n't in the public domain ( even though they are under US law ) Fixed that for you.If all museum images were simply appropriated by file-sharers under the rationale that they * should * be in the public domain , pretty soon there would n't be any museum willing to pay for the digitization of important works , and we 'd all be worse off .
Wikimedia are more than willing to cooperate with museums - the NPG just does n't want to .
That is n't an argument for granting copyright to public domain images .
Copyright is about originality , not effort .
Museums have plenty of ways to make money - changing world-wide laws to grant copyright to images that have been in the public domain for hundreds of years is not one of them.And whilst it 's plausible to think that people downloading an mp3 do so instead of buying a CD , do you really think that " filesharers " with portraits are going to result in people no longer visiting museums ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Defenders of the NPG say the images are aren't in the public domain (even though they are under US law)Fixed that for you.If all museum images were simply appropriated by file-sharers under the rationale that they *should* be in the public domain, pretty soon there wouldn't be any museum willing to pay for the digitization of important works, and we'd all be worse off.
Wikimedia are more than willing to cooperate with museums - the NPG just doesn't want to.
That isn't an argument for granting copyright to public domain images.
Copyright is about originality, not effort.
Museums have plenty of ways to make money - changing world-wide laws to grant copyright to images that have been in the public domain for hundreds of years is not one of them.And whilst it's plausible to think that people downloading an mp3 do so instead of buying a CD, do you really think that "filesharers" with portraits are going to result in people no longer visiting museums?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28735175</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures versus digital photos...</title>
	<author>blueskies</author>
	<datestamp>1247825940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if i make a photocopy do i get a copyright or don't i?  You've avoided this question.  And for a good reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if i make a photocopy do i get a copyright or do n't i ?
You 've avoided this question .
And for a good reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if i make a photocopy do i get a copyright or don't i?
You've avoided this question.
And for a good reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728065</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures versus digital photos...</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247836980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, the thing is that this is a legal gray area in the U.S..  Photographs are very much copyrighted, but if the museum had pulled the paintings off the wall and ran them through a big color copier, the result would not be copyrighted in the U.S..  The only argument is whether a photograph of a painting is a "straight-up copy" in the first place, as far as U.S. law is concerned, as you point out.</p><p>Also as you point out, it isn't easy to get a high-quality photo of a painting.  OTOH, that doesn't necessarily mean that it meets the test as copyrightable.  It isn't to make a mold of, say, Leonardo's David, either.  But that doesn't mean that the result is copyrightable, either..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , the thing is that this is a legal gray area in the U.S.. Photographs are very much copyrighted , but if the museum had pulled the paintings off the wall and ran them through a big color copier , the result would not be copyrighted in the U.S.. The only argument is whether a photograph of a painting is a " straight-up copy " in the first place , as far as U.S. law is concerned , as you point out.Also as you point out , it is n't easy to get a high-quality photo of a painting .
OTOH , that does n't necessarily mean that it meets the test as copyrightable .
It is n't to make a mold of , say , Leonardo 's David , either .
But that does n't mean that the result is copyrightable , either. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, the thing is that this is a legal gray area in the U.S..  Photographs are very much copyrighted, but if the museum had pulled the paintings off the wall and ran them through a big color copier, the result would not be copyrighted in the U.S..  The only argument is whether a photograph of a painting is a "straight-up copy" in the first place, as far as U.S. law is concerned, as you point out.Also as you point out, it isn't easy to get a high-quality photo of a painting.
OTOH, that doesn't necessarily mean that it meets the test as copyrightable.
It isn't to make a mold of, say, Leonardo's David, either.
But that doesn't mean that the result is copyrightable, either..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28727991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728261</id>
	<title>Re:UK Law is not unclear</title>
	<author>blackraven14250</author>
	<datestamp>1247838360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not UK law that matters. They can't charge someone in the UK for something they did in the US. That becomes an international law issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not UK law that matters .
They ca n't charge someone in the UK for something they did in the US .
That becomes an international law issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not UK law that matters.
They can't charge someone in the UK for something they did in the US.
That becomes an international law issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041</id>
	<title>This isn't a Robin Hood story</title>
	<author>waderoush</author>
	<datestamp>1247836740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Defenders of the Wikimedia Foundation say the images are in the public domain (even though they aren't under UK law) and applaud Coetzee as if he were some kind of Robin Hood. Unfortunately, it's a case of the poor stealing from the poor. If all museum images were simply appropriated by file-sharers under the rationale that they *should* be in the public domain, pretty soon there wouldn't be any museum willing to pay for the digitization of important works, and we'd all be worse off.

See the rest of my argument here: <a href="http://www.xconomy.com/national/2009/07/17/art-isnt-free-the-tragedy-of-the-wikimedia-commons/" title="xconomy.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.xconomy.com/national/2009/07/17/art-isnt-free-the-tragedy-of-the-wikimedia-commons/</a> [xconomy.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Defenders of the Wikimedia Foundation say the images are in the public domain ( even though they are n't under UK law ) and applaud Coetzee as if he were some kind of Robin Hood .
Unfortunately , it 's a case of the poor stealing from the poor .
If all museum images were simply appropriated by file-sharers under the rationale that they * should * be in the public domain , pretty soon there would n't be any museum willing to pay for the digitization of important works , and we 'd all be worse off .
See the rest of my argument here : http : //www.xconomy.com/national/2009/07/17/art-isnt-free-the-tragedy-of-the-wikimedia-commons/ [ xconomy.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Defenders of the Wikimedia Foundation say the images are in the public domain (even though they aren't under UK law) and applaud Coetzee as if he were some kind of Robin Hood.
Unfortunately, it's a case of the poor stealing from the poor.
If all museum images were simply appropriated by file-sharers under the rationale that they *should* be in the public domain, pretty soon there wouldn't be any museum willing to pay for the digitization of important works, and we'd all be worse off.
See the rest of my argument here: http://www.xconomy.com/national/2009/07/17/art-isnt-free-the-tragedy-of-the-wikimedia-commons/ [xconomy.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28733685</id>
	<title>Re:Try doing the same in the US</title>
	<author>gurner</author>
	<datestamp>1247862300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>S'funny - the Smithsonian'll charge you to obtain their collection, too:</p><p><a href="http://americanart.si.edu/collections/rights/index.cfm" title="si.edu" rel="nofollow">http://americanart.si.edu/collections/rights/index.cfm</a> [si.edu]</p><p>You don't suspect there's a degree of hypocrisy in the Wikimedia stance, do you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>S'funny - the Smithsonian 'll charge you to obtain their collection , too : http : //americanart.si.edu/collections/rights/index.cfm [ si.edu ] You do n't suspect there 's a degree of hypocrisy in the Wikimedia stance , do you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>S'funny - the Smithsonian'll charge you to obtain their collection, too:http://americanart.si.edu/collections/rights/index.cfm [si.edu]You don't suspect there's a degree of hypocrisy in the Wikimedia stance, do you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28731603</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a Robin Hood story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247853000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And then the Tax Payers complain that all the money is being wasted on moldy old museums that nobody cares about.</p><p>Believe it or not, museums do need some sort of revenue stream, otherwise they can't pay for improvements, or even maintenance.  It's just not as simple as "give them tax money" and ending it there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then the Tax Payers complain that all the money is being wasted on moldy old museums that nobody cares about.Believe it or not , museums do need some sort of revenue stream , otherwise they ca n't pay for improvements , or even maintenance .
It 's just not as simple as " give them tax money " and ending it there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then the Tax Payers complain that all the money is being wasted on moldy old museums that nobody cares about.Believe it or not, museums do need some sort of revenue stream, otherwise they can't pay for improvements, or even maintenance.
It's just not as simple as "give them tax money" and ending it there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730821</id>
	<title>Re:UK Law is not unclear</title>
	<author>lorax</author>
	<datestamp>1247849640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Under US Law, which you say is "actually the same thing"  as UK law in this regards, you are quite entirely wrong.
</p><p>
For images there is "<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36\_FSupp2d\_191.htm" title="cornell.edu">BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORP., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)</a> [cornell.edu]" which held that:
</p><blockquote><div><p>[1] On November 13, 1998, this Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's copyright infringement claim on the alternative grounds that the allegedly infringed works -- color transparencies of paintings which themselves are in the public domain -- were not original and therefore not permissible subjects of valid copyright and, in any case, were not infringed. [n1] It applied United Kingdom law in determining whether plaintiff's transparencies were copyrightable. [n2] The Court noted, however, that it would have reached the same result under United States law. [n3]</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

For your book example you say</p><blockquote><div><p>Example: Say there is a text from a book written in the 1800's that is out of copyright in the US. I want to publish a copy of it, say, for a Kindle or even a discount-book print copy.</p></div>
</blockquote><blockquote><div><p>I have to find a printing of the source material that is out of copyright already. I need to have a physical book to get the text from that is over 75 years old (or whatever the appropriate copyright term is for that physical book).</p></div>
</blockquote><blockquote><div><p>I *can't* take a reprinting from 20 years ago and base it on that because *that* book IS copyrighted, even if the source material isn't.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
You are wrong again.  Facsimile editions (which preserve the layout) don't get a copyright.  Even new printings (same words, new layout) don't get a new copyright on the words (they layout may or may not).  New text, like new introductions or authors bios do.  That doesn't mean publishers don't claim copyright, but it may mean they are invalid.  Take a look at the <a href="http://pge.rastko.net/faq/gutfaq.htm#V.19" title="rastko.net">Project Gutenberg FAQ</a> [rastko.net]
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Under US Law , which you say is " actually the same thing " as UK law in this regards , you are quite entirely wrong .
For images there is " BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY , LTD. v. COREL CORP. , 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 ( S.D.N.Y .
1999 ) [ cornell.edu ] " which held that : [ 1 ] On November 13 , 1998 , this Court granted defendant 's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff 's copyright infringement claim on the alternative grounds that the allegedly infringed works -- color transparencies of paintings which themselves are in the public domain -- were not original and therefore not permissible subjects of valid copyright and , in any case , were not infringed .
[ n1 ] It applied United Kingdom law in determining whether plaintiff 's transparencies were copyrightable .
[ n2 ] The Court noted , however , that it would have reached the same result under United States law .
[ n3 ] For your book example you sayExample : Say there is a text from a book written in the 1800 's that is out of copyright in the US .
I want to publish a copy of it , say , for a Kindle or even a discount-book print copy .
I have to find a printing of the source material that is out of copyright already .
I need to have a physical book to get the text from that is over 75 years old ( or whatever the appropriate copyright term is for that physical book ) .
I * ca n't * take a reprinting from 20 years ago and base it on that because * that * book IS copyrighted , even if the source material is n't .
You are wrong again .
Facsimile editions ( which preserve the layout ) do n't get a copyright .
Even new printings ( same words , new layout ) do n't get a new copyright on the words ( they layout may or may not ) .
New text , like new introductions or authors bios do .
That does n't mean publishers do n't claim copyright , but it may mean they are invalid .
Take a look at the Project Gutenberg FAQ [ rastko.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under US Law, which you say is "actually the same thing"  as UK law in this regards, you are quite entirely wrong.
For images there is "BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORP., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y.
1999) [cornell.edu]" which held that:
[1] On November 13, 1998, this Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's copyright infringement claim on the alternative grounds that the allegedly infringed works -- color transparencies of paintings which themselves are in the public domain -- were not original and therefore not permissible subjects of valid copyright and, in any case, were not infringed.
[n1] It applied United Kingdom law in determining whether plaintiff's transparencies were copyrightable.
[n2] The Court noted, however, that it would have reached the same result under United States law.
[n3]


For your book example you sayExample: Say there is a text from a book written in the 1800's that is out of copyright in the US.
I want to publish a copy of it, say, for a Kindle or even a discount-book print copy.
I have to find a printing of the source material that is out of copyright already.
I need to have a physical book to get the text from that is over 75 years old (or whatever the appropriate copyright term is for that physical book).
I *can't* take a reprinting from 20 years ago and base it on that because *that* book IS copyrighted, even if the source material isn't.
You are wrong again.
Facsimile editions (which preserve the layout) don't get a copyright.
Even new printings (same words, new layout) don't get a new copyright on the words (they layout may or may not).
New text, like new introductions or authors bios do.
That doesn't mean publishers don't claim copyright, but it may mean they are invalid.
Take a look at the Project Gutenberg FAQ [rastko.net]

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28732581</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a Robin Hood story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247857200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There purpose...</p></div><p>There? Where?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There purpose...There ?
Where ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There purpose...There?
Where?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28727963</id>
	<title>forst pist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247836080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>roflcopter!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>roflcopter ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>roflcopter!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28736643</id>
	<title>Re:Difficult Case</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247835420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with how much work went into something.  It has to do with creative or original content.</p><p>There was a relevant case when the board game Trivial Pursuit first came out.  The creators had taken several questions from a trivia book written by someone else.  The author sued, but the courts ruled that since you can't copyright facts, the trivia questions weren't protected - even though the author had spent years compiling them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with how much work went into something .
It has to do with creative or original content.There was a relevant case when the board game Trivial Pursuit first came out .
The creators had taken several questions from a trivia book written by someone else .
The author sued , but the courts ruled that since you ca n't copyright facts , the trivia questions were n't protected - even though the author had spent years compiling them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with how much work went into something.
It has to do with creative or original content.There was a relevant case when the board game Trivial Pursuit first came out.
The creators had taken several questions from a trivia book written by someone else.
The author sued, but the courts ruled that since you can't copyright facts, the trivia questions weren't protected - even though the author had spent years compiling them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728639</id>
	<title>Re:UK Law is not unclear</title>
	<author>tgd</author>
	<datestamp>1247840400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>US law is actually the same thing. The photograph is still copyrighted, even if the thing it is of isn't.</p><p>Example: Say there is a text from a book written in the 1800's that is out of copyright in the US. I want to publish a copy of it, say, for a Kindle or even a discount-book print copy.</p><p>I have to find a printing of the source material that is out of copyright already. I need to have a physical book to get the text from that is over 75 years old (or whatever the appropriate copyright term is for that physical book).</p><p>I *can't* take a reprinting from 20 years ago and base it on that because *that* book IS copyrighted, even if the source material isn't.</p><p>Its the same with photos, even in the US. A photo has its own copyright. I can copy a *photo* that is out of copyright freely, but can't copy a photo that is under copyright of something that isn't.</p><p>NPG is in the right, here... in the US and the UK. (And rightfully so, IMO -- there's a lot of work that goes into making those digital images... if you want one out of copyright, do it youself and release your copy into the public domain.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>US law is actually the same thing .
The photograph is still copyrighted , even if the thing it is of is n't.Example : Say there is a text from a book written in the 1800 's that is out of copyright in the US .
I want to publish a copy of it , say , for a Kindle or even a discount-book print copy.I have to find a printing of the source material that is out of copyright already .
I need to have a physical book to get the text from that is over 75 years old ( or whatever the appropriate copyright term is for that physical book ) .I * ca n't * take a reprinting from 20 years ago and base it on that because * that * book IS copyrighted , even if the source material is n't.Its the same with photos , even in the US .
A photo has its own copyright .
I can copy a * photo * that is out of copyright freely , but ca n't copy a photo that is under copyright of something that is n't.NPG is in the right , here... in the US and the UK .
( And rightfully so , IMO -- there 's a lot of work that goes into making those digital images... if you want one out of copyright , do it youself and release your copy into the public domain .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US law is actually the same thing.
The photograph is still copyrighted, even if the thing it is of isn't.Example: Say there is a text from a book written in the 1800's that is out of copyright in the US.
I want to publish a copy of it, say, for a Kindle or even a discount-book print copy.I have to find a printing of the source material that is out of copyright already.
I need to have a physical book to get the text from that is over 75 years old (or whatever the appropriate copyright term is for that physical book).I *can't* take a reprinting from 20 years ago and base it on that because *that* book IS copyrighted, even if the source material isn't.Its the same with photos, even in the US.
A photo has its own copyright.
I can copy a *photo* that is out of copyright freely, but can't copy a photo that is under copyright of something that isn't.NPG is in the right, here... in the US and the UK.
(And rightfully so, IMO -- there's a lot of work that goes into making those digital images... if you want one out of copyright, do it youself and release your copy into the public domain.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729187</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures versus digital photos...</title>
	<author>intheshelter</author>
	<datestamp>1247842860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a photographer and I disagree.  If you're just taking a straight up shot to reproduce a picture then it is no different than using a photocopier (much more manual and difficult of course) and is not "artistic".  Technical skills is involved for sure, but just because you have to make decisions during the process doesn't make it artistic. If the photographer used the paintings to create a unique arrangement or collage then I can see your point, but a straight up reproduction should be in the public domain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a photographer and I disagree .
If you 're just taking a straight up shot to reproduce a picture then it is no different than using a photocopier ( much more manual and difficult of course ) and is not " artistic " .
Technical skills is involved for sure , but just because you have to make decisions during the process does n't make it artistic .
If the photographer used the paintings to create a unique arrangement or collage then I can see your point , but a straight up reproduction should be in the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a photographer and I disagree.
If you're just taking a straight up shot to reproduce a picture then it is no different than using a photocopier (much more manual and difficult of course) and is not "artistic".
Technical skills is involved for sure, but just because you have to make decisions during the process doesn't make it artistic.
If the photographer used the paintings to create a unique arrangement or collage then I can see your point, but a straight up reproduction should be in the public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729417</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a Robin Hood story</title>
	<author>saintsfan</author>
	<datestamp>1247843760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Unfortunately, it's a case of the poor stealing from the poor. " i think using the word steal is a gross exaggeration in this context. loaded language</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Unfortunately , it 's a case of the poor stealing from the poor .
" i think using the word steal is a gross exaggeration in this context .
loaded language</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Unfortunately, it's a case of the poor stealing from the poor.
" i think using the word steal is a gross exaggeration in this context.
loaded language</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729969</id>
	<title>Re:NPG = Free Entry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247846100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As an Amateur photographer who has had their work pirated by someone from the USA and realises the futility of trying to stop them from claiming it as their own, I'm with the NPG on this one. Btw, I would have given the pirate a high quality copy of the picture if they had asked for it and agreed that the copyright was mine. Instead, he stole it.</p></div><p>This makes absolutely no sense. The usual confusion of piracy, theft and copyright infringement nonwithstanding, even if genuine copyright infringement occurred in your case, what does this have to do with a wholly unrelated case where it's quite clear that under US law at least, no such thing HAS occurred, and where it's also quite clear that, given that the paintings in question themselves are hundreds of years old, this is the way it SHOULD be?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an Amateur photographer who has had their work pirated by someone from the USA and realises the futility of trying to stop them from claiming it as their own , I 'm with the NPG on this one .
Btw , I would have given the pirate a high quality copy of the picture if they had asked for it and agreed that the copyright was mine .
Instead , he stole it.This makes absolutely no sense .
The usual confusion of piracy , theft and copyright infringement nonwithstanding , even if genuine copyright infringement occurred in your case , what does this have to do with a wholly unrelated case where it 's quite clear that under US law at least , no such thing HAS occurred , and where it 's also quite clear that , given that the paintings in question themselves are hundreds of years old , this is the way it SHOULD be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an Amateur photographer who has had their work pirated by someone from the USA and realises the futility of trying to stop them from claiming it as their own, I'm with the NPG on this one.
Btw, I would have given the pirate a high quality copy of the picture if they had asked for it and agreed that the copyright was mine.
Instead, he stole it.This makes absolutely no sense.
The usual confusion of piracy, theft and copyright infringement nonwithstanding, even if genuine copyright infringement occurred in your case, what does this have to do with a wholly unrelated case where it's quite clear that under US law at least, no such thing HAS occurred, and where it's also quite clear that, given that the paintings in question themselves are hundreds of years old, this is the way it SHOULD be?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28733749</id>
	<title>Re:Low tech solution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247862600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen them take cameras away from tourists before.  I suspect they aren't returned with the images still in place.</p><p>Not sure why you advocate breaking the law<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen them take cameras away from tourists before .
I suspect they are n't returned with the images still in place.Not sure why you advocate breaking the law ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen them take cameras away from tourists before.
I suspect they aren't returned with the images still in place.Not sure why you advocate breaking the law ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28739817</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures versus digital photos...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247921700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who mentioned photocopiers?<br>The requirement to take lighting, angles, framing and mise-en-sene into account is the whole reason why photography is considered artistic, and copyright is applicable to it. Should a photograph of a tree, then, fall under public domain, on the grounds that the tree itself isn't covered by copyright, if, after all framing, mise-en-sene, lighting, lens selection, etc aren't considered artistic input? Also, one of the ideas behind photography itself, is to try capturing a scene, while lighting, framing, perspective and mise-en-sene are all taken into account and employed, nothing is being added to the scene itself (you are, after all, only working with what is already there). Are you suggesting that no photography should be copyrightable? There isn't much,if any difference between taking a photograph of a painting, versus any other scene. This isn't point-and-shoot we're talking about here. Artistry and skill goes into photography.</p><p>A photocopy or straight digital scan is one thing, a photograph is an entirely different matter.  As both a photographer and an artist, I, too side with the museum, here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who mentioned photocopiers ? The requirement to take lighting , angles , framing and mise-en-sene into account is the whole reason why photography is considered artistic , and copyright is applicable to it .
Should a photograph of a tree , then , fall under public domain , on the grounds that the tree itself is n't covered by copyright , if , after all framing , mise-en-sene , lighting , lens selection , etc are n't considered artistic input ?
Also , one of the ideas behind photography itself , is to try capturing a scene , while lighting , framing , perspective and mise-en-sene are all taken into account and employed , nothing is being added to the scene itself ( you are , after all , only working with what is already there ) .
Are you suggesting that no photography should be copyrightable ?
There is n't much,if any difference between taking a photograph of a painting , versus any other scene .
This is n't point-and-shoot we 're talking about here .
Artistry and skill goes into photography.A photocopy or straight digital scan is one thing , a photograph is an entirely different matter .
As both a photographer and an artist , I , too side with the museum , here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who mentioned photocopiers?The requirement to take lighting, angles, framing and mise-en-sene into account is the whole reason why photography is considered artistic, and copyright is applicable to it.
Should a photograph of a tree, then, fall under public domain, on the grounds that the tree itself isn't covered by copyright, if, after all framing, mise-en-sene, lighting, lens selection, etc aren't considered artistic input?
Also, one of the ideas behind photography itself, is to try capturing a scene, while lighting, framing, perspective and mise-en-sene are all taken into account and employed, nothing is being added to the scene itself (you are, after all, only working with what is already there).
Are you suggesting that no photography should be copyrightable?
There isn't much,if any difference between taking a photograph of a painting, versus any other scene.
This isn't point-and-shoot we're talking about here.
Artistry and skill goes into photography.A photocopy or straight digital scan is one thing, a photograph is an entirely different matter.
As both a photographer and an artist, I, too side with the museum, here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729267</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a Robin Hood story</title>
	<author>Martin Spamer</author>
	<datestamp>1247843100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikimedia foundation had an income of $7.75 Million last year and retained earning of $8m from previous years.  The NPG had an income of &pound;2.24 Million last year.  So relatively speaking Wikimedia foundation is the rich one stealing from the poor one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikimedia foundation had an income of $ 7.75 Million last year and retained earning of $ 8m from previous years .
The NPG had an income of   2.24 Million last year .
So relatively speaking Wikimedia foundation is the rich one stealing from the poor one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikimedia foundation had an income of $7.75 Million last year and retained earning of $8m from previous years.
The NPG had an income of £2.24 Million last year.
So relatively speaking Wikimedia foundation is the rich one stealing from the poor one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728555</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a Robin Hood story</title>
	<author>delt0r</author>
	<datestamp>1247839920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Museums do not and should not need to turn a profit. Hell in the UK they are all free (at least last time i was there). There purpose is preservation of important cultural  and historic items. They get money from tax payers to do this... Digitization is part of their job. Not some new way to create a new revenue stream.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Museums do not and should not need to turn a profit .
Hell in the UK they are all free ( at least last time i was there ) .
There purpose is preservation of important cultural and historic items .
They get money from tax payers to do this... Digitization is part of their job .
Not some new way to create a new revenue stream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Museums do not and should not need to turn a profit.
Hell in the UK they are all free (at least last time i was there).
There purpose is preservation of important cultural  and historic items.
They get money from tax payers to do this... Digitization is part of their job.
Not some new way to create a new revenue stream.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730509</id>
	<title>Re:NPG = Free Entry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247848320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If, because of Wikipedia, works can't command as much profits as before, their price will go down, and the NPG can buy the same number of new works with their reduced profits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If , because of Wikipedia , works ca n't command as much profits as before , their price will go down , and the NPG can buy the same number of new works with their reduced profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If, because of Wikipedia, works can't command as much profits as before, their price will go down, and the NPG can buy the same number of new works with their reduced profits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728227</id>
	<title>Ok, im gonna send 5 bucks to eff then.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1247838120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and i will type in paypal description 'for NPG case'. hehee. dont make fun of me, i do that all the time. my donations may be small, but at least it can pay some snacks for one of the staff. everything counts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and i will type in paypal description 'for NPG case' .
hehee. dont make fun of me , i do that all the time .
my donations may be small , but at least it can pay some snacks for one of the staff .
everything counts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and i will type in paypal description 'for NPG case'.
hehee. dont make fun of me, i do that all the time.
my donations may be small, but at least it can pay some snacks for one of the staff.
everything counts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730085</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a Robin Hood story</title>
	<author>OldBus</author>
	<datestamp>1247846640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They don't make a profit.  But of course if they didn't have other revenue streams then the UK taxpayers (of whom i am one) would have to provide more money to allow the galleries to provide the same level of services.
<br><br>
There are alternatives of course: they could provide reduced services (eg smaller digitisation programmes, reduced opening hours) or we in the UK could make it explicit that the taxpayer funded museums had provide stuff like this for free and up our tax contributions.  Personally, I'm in favour of this latter option, but I suspect I'm in the minority.
<br><br>
On this topic, Americans need to learn that there's more than one way to do it.  Just cos your state funded services provide all their stuff in the public domain doesn't mean that it is the only way.  In the UK we usually go for a mixture of taxes and cost-recovery to fund these institutions.  It does at least have the benefits of allowing high-quality services for less tax.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't make a profit .
But of course if they did n't have other revenue streams then the UK taxpayers ( of whom i am one ) would have to provide more money to allow the galleries to provide the same level of services .
There are alternatives of course : they could provide reduced services ( eg smaller digitisation programmes , reduced opening hours ) or we in the UK could make it explicit that the taxpayer funded museums had provide stuff like this for free and up our tax contributions .
Personally , I 'm in favour of this latter option , but I suspect I 'm in the minority .
On this topic , Americans need to learn that there 's more than one way to do it .
Just cos your state funded services provide all their stuff in the public domain does n't mean that it is the only way .
In the UK we usually go for a mixture of taxes and cost-recovery to fund these institutions .
It does at least have the benefits of allowing high-quality services for less tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't make a profit.
But of course if they didn't have other revenue streams then the UK taxpayers (of whom i am one) would have to provide more money to allow the galleries to provide the same level of services.
There are alternatives of course: they could provide reduced services (eg smaller digitisation programmes, reduced opening hours) or we in the UK could make it explicit that the taxpayer funded museums had provide stuff like this for free and up our tax contributions.
Personally, I'm in favour of this latter option, but I suspect I'm in the minority.
On this topic, Americans need to learn that there's more than one way to do it.
Just cos your state funded services provide all their stuff in the public domain doesn't mean that it is the only way.
In the UK we usually go for a mixture of taxes and cost-recovery to fund these institutions.
It does at least have the benefits of allowing high-quality services for less tax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28731029</id>
	<title>Re:NPG = Free Entry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247850480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question is, under US law, the photographs are public domain. There isn't even any room for, as the grandparent poster said, "rationale" that they "should" be under the public domain; according to US law, they *are* public domain. Whatever UK law or the NPG might feel or say about it, he's simply dealing in public domain images.</p><p>How, then, is he a pirate? And how could he agree that the copyright was anyones when it was under the public domain? That'd be making false copyright claims, which is perjury (at least if you make claims against someone).</p><p>From an ethical standpoint, though, there might be a valid argument. So my question becomes, does the NPG allow visitors to take photographs of the public domain paintings? If so, then I might tend to say, "NPG doesn't have a valid claim, but I feel for them."</p><p>If they prevent photographs from being taken, then I have no sympathy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is , under US law , the photographs are public domain .
There is n't even any room for , as the grandparent poster said , " rationale " that they " should " be under the public domain ; according to US law , they * are * public domain .
Whatever UK law or the NPG might feel or say about it , he 's simply dealing in public domain images.How , then , is he a pirate ?
And how could he agree that the copyright was anyones when it was under the public domain ?
That 'd be making false copyright claims , which is perjury ( at least if you make claims against someone ) .From an ethical standpoint , though , there might be a valid argument .
So my question becomes , does the NPG allow visitors to take photographs of the public domain paintings ?
If so , then I might tend to say , " NPG does n't have a valid claim , but I feel for them .
" If they prevent photographs from being taken , then I have no sympathy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is, under US law, the photographs are public domain.
There isn't even any room for, as the grandparent poster said, "rationale" that they "should" be under the public domain; according to US law, they *are* public domain.
Whatever UK law or the NPG might feel or say about it, he's simply dealing in public domain images.How, then, is he a pirate?
And how could he agree that the copyright was anyones when it was under the public domain?
That'd be making false copyright claims, which is perjury (at least if you make claims against someone).From an ethical standpoint, though, there might be a valid argument.
So my question becomes, does the NPG allow visitors to take photographs of the public domain paintings?
If so, then I might tend to say, "NPG doesn't have a valid claim, but I feel for them.
"If they prevent photographs from being taken, then I have no sympathy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728075</id>
	<title>UK Law is not unclear</title>
	<author>abigsmurf</author>
	<datestamp>1247837040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>UK law is very clear, photographs, even if they're of a subject matter that is public domain, are subject to their own copyright as an original work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>UK law is very clear , photographs , even if they 're of a subject matter that is public domain , are subject to their own copyright as an original work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UK law is very clear, photographs, even if they're of a subject matter that is public domain, are subject to their own copyright as an original work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729459</id>
	<title>Low tech solution?</title>
	<author>ingsocsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1247843940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I don't get is why people haven't started sneaking in cameras and taking the pictures themselves. The rentacops there can't make you delete the photos, and I'm sure that legally they can only ask you to leave. I think you could take lots of photos before they even noticed. After a while I'm sure we'd get all 3000 images!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't get is why people have n't started sneaking in cameras and taking the pictures themselves .
The rentacops there ca n't make you delete the photos , and I 'm sure that legally they can only ask you to leave .
I think you could take lots of photos before they even noticed .
After a while I 'm sure we 'd get all 3000 images !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't get is why people haven't started sneaking in cameras and taking the pictures themselves.
The rentacops there can't make you delete the photos, and I'm sure that legally they can only ask you to leave.
I think you could take lots of photos before they even noticed.
After a while I'm sure we'd get all 3000 images!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729091</id>
	<title>Free Entry != No Cost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247842440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The National Portrait Gallery in LONDON does not charge people who can turn up and enter the premises, which is lovely for people who live in LONDON, but increasingly expensive as your location diverges from LONDON. This means that poor people from Scotland, for instance, ahve little chance of seeing the images in a decent resolution, unencumbered bt the NPG's assininse DRM viewer.</p><p>Wikimedia putting these images on the web benefits everyone in the world, including all those people for whom a trip to the NPG and an overnight stay is unfeasible.</p><p>Since the NPG has spent the money on digitisation and doesn't recoup it by charging admission, I'm not sure how people NOT coming through the doors will be to the NPG's detriment. Even if they get money proportional to the amount of people coming though the door, I'm not sure that putting the full-res images on the web would deter anyone in the vicinity from going into the gallery and viewing the paintings for real - it's clearly more ideal - and I highly doubt that anyone so dedicated to viewing the images that they'd make the trip from afar, would be deterred by the availability of the digitised images on the web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The National Portrait Gallery in LONDON does not charge people who can turn up and enter the premises , which is lovely for people who live in LONDON , but increasingly expensive as your location diverges from LONDON .
This means that poor people from Scotland , for instance , ahve little chance of seeing the images in a decent resolution , unencumbered bt the NPG 's assininse DRM viewer.Wikimedia putting these images on the web benefits everyone in the world , including all those people for whom a trip to the NPG and an overnight stay is unfeasible.Since the NPG has spent the money on digitisation and does n't recoup it by charging admission , I 'm not sure how people NOT coming through the doors will be to the NPG 's detriment .
Even if they get money proportional to the amount of people coming though the door , I 'm not sure that putting the full-res images on the web would deter anyone in the vicinity from going into the gallery and viewing the paintings for real - it 's clearly more ideal - and I highly doubt that anyone so dedicated to viewing the images that they 'd make the trip from afar , would be deterred by the availability of the digitised images on the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The National Portrait Gallery in LONDON does not charge people who can turn up and enter the premises, which is lovely for people who live in LONDON, but increasingly expensive as your location diverges from LONDON.
This means that poor people from Scotland, for instance, ahve little chance of seeing the images in a decent resolution, unencumbered bt the NPG's assininse DRM viewer.Wikimedia putting these images on the web benefits everyone in the world, including all those people for whom a trip to the NPG and an overnight stay is unfeasible.Since the NPG has spent the money on digitisation and doesn't recoup it by charging admission, I'm not sure how people NOT coming through the doors will be to the NPG's detriment.
Even if they get money proportional to the amount of people coming though the door, I'm not sure that putting the full-res images on the web would deter anyone in the vicinity from going into the gallery and viewing the paintings for real - it's clearly more ideal - and I highly doubt that anyone so dedicated to viewing the images that they'd make the trip from afar, would be deterred by the availability of the digitised images on the web.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730473</id>
	<title>That's not a good argument is it  ?</title>
	<author>tizan</author>
	<datestamp>1247848140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is not okay to block a freedom just because it makes economic sense.

so be it if no museum is going to be willing to pay for digitization because they can't recoup their cost or
make profit out of it. They should revisit their goal of being a museum. Not block people freedom
of sharing something that is free,  If they can't do it...i'm sure somebody else will be willing to
do it and even ind a way to make profits without blocking the freedom of sharing something that is free,</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not okay to block a freedom just because it makes economic sense .
so be it if no museum is going to be willing to pay for digitization because they ca n't recoup their cost or make profit out of it .
They should revisit their goal of being a museum .
Not block people freedom of sharing something that is free , If they ca n't do it...i 'm sure somebody else will be willing to do it and even ind a way to make profits without blocking the freedom of sharing something that is free,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not okay to block a freedom just because it makes economic sense.
so be it if no museum is going to be willing to pay for digitization because they can't recoup their cost or
make profit out of it.
They should revisit their goal of being a museum.
Not block people freedom
of sharing something that is free,  If they can't do it...i'm sure somebody else will be willing to
do it and even ind a way to make profits without blocking the freedom of sharing something that is free,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728113</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures versus digital photos...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247837400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>English law sides with you, and the gallery, American law sides with Wikipedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>English law sides with you , and the gallery , American law sides with Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>English law sides with you, and the gallery, American law sides with Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28727991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28737403</id>
	<title>Re:UK Law is not unclear</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1247841360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no explicit exemption in U.S. law either, but it is concluded from the requirements for originality. It would have to be tried in court.</p><p>Your "fair" solution suggests that Wikipedia cave to the will of a foreign institution and abandon their principles of contribution, even though their use is clearly allowed in the relevant region (United States). Hey, maybe we should also listen to what China has to say about what gets into Wikipedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no explicit exemption in U.S. law either , but it is concluded from the requirements for originality .
It would have to be tried in court.Your " fair " solution suggests that Wikipedia cave to the will of a foreign institution and abandon their principles of contribution , even though their use is clearly allowed in the relevant region ( United States ) .
Hey , maybe we should also listen to what China has to say about what gets into Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no explicit exemption in U.S. law either, but it is concluded from the requirements for originality.
It would have to be tried in court.Your "fair" solution suggests that Wikipedia cave to the will of a foreign institution and abandon their principles of contribution, even though their use is clearly allowed in the relevant region (United States).
Hey, maybe we should also listen to what China has to say about what gets into Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728061</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures versus digital photos...</title>
	<author>vagabond\_gr</author>
	<datestamp>1247836980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quoting from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman\_Art\_Library\_v.\_Corel\_Corp." title="wikipedia.org">one of TFAs</a> [wikipedia.org] (emphasis mine):</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a<br>decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New<br>York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could<br>not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality. <b>Even if<br>accurate reproductions require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the<br>key element for copyrightability under U.S. law is that copyrighted material<br>must show sufficient originality.</b></p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quoting from one of TFAs [ wikipedia.org ] ( emphasis mine ) : Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. , 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 ( S.D.N.Y .
1999 ) , was adecision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork , which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images couldnot be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality .
Even ifaccurate reproductions require a great deal of skill , experience and effort , thekey element for copyrightability under U.S. law is that copyrighted materialmust show sufficient originality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quoting from one of TFAs [wikipedia.org] (emphasis mine):Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y.
1999), was adecision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images couldnot be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality.
Even ifaccurate reproductions require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, thekey element for copyrightability under U.S. law is that copyrighted materialmust show sufficient originality. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28727991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728039</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures versus digital photos...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247836740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>But this kind of test is stupid.  If I grabbed one of these portraits off the wall and threw it in a photocopier, do I get copyright on whatever comes out?  I should hope not.  Likewise, while it may not be easy to photograph one of these works, you are certainly not adding anything to the actual content of the image; indeed, you are actively trying not to.  Technical expertise went into creating them, yes.  Artistry, no.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But this kind of test is stupid .
If I grabbed one of these portraits off the wall and threw it in a photocopier , do I get copyright on whatever comes out ?
I should hope not .
Likewise , while it may not be easy to photograph one of these works , you are certainly not adding anything to the actual content of the image ; indeed , you are actively trying not to .
Technical expertise went into creating them , yes .
Artistry , no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But this kind of test is stupid.
If I grabbed one of these portraits off the wall and threw it in a photocopier, do I get copyright on whatever comes out?
I should hope not.
Likewise, while it may not be easy to photograph one of these works, you are certainly not adding anything to the actual content of the image; indeed, you are actively trying not to.
Technical expertise went into creating them, yes.
Artistry, no.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28727991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728435</id>
	<title>NPG = Free Entry</title>
	<author>RotateLeftByte</author>
	<datestamp>1247839320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The National Portrait Gallery in London (Where the original pictures reside) DOES NOT CHARGE for entrance. I have spent many a wet lunch hour wandering around the Gallery enjoying the artwork.</p><p>I sells high quality prints of the Artwork. This is a way of raising funds for the upkeep and towards the purchase of new work.<br>As an Amateur photographer who has had their work pirated by someone from the USA and realises the futility of trying to stop them from claiming it as their own, I'm with the NPG on this one. Btw, I would have given the pirate a high quality copy of the picture if they had asked for it and agreed that the copyright was mine. Instead, he stole it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The National Portrait Gallery in London ( Where the original pictures reside ) DOES NOT CHARGE for entrance .
I have spent many a wet lunch hour wandering around the Gallery enjoying the artwork.I sells high quality prints of the Artwork .
This is a way of raising funds for the upkeep and towards the purchase of new work.As an Amateur photographer who has had their work pirated by someone from the USA and realises the futility of trying to stop them from claiming it as their own , I 'm with the NPG on this one .
Btw , I would have given the pirate a high quality copy of the picture if they had asked for it and agreed that the copyright was mine .
Instead , he stole it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The National Portrait Gallery in London (Where the original pictures reside) DOES NOT CHARGE for entrance.
I have spent many a wet lunch hour wandering around the Gallery enjoying the artwork.I sells high quality prints of the Artwork.
This is a way of raising funds for the upkeep and towards the purchase of new work.As an Amateur photographer who has had their work pirated by someone from the USA and realises the futility of trying to stop them from claiming it as their own, I'm with the NPG on this one.
Btw, I would have given the pirate a high quality copy of the picture if they had asked for it and agreed that the copyright was mine.
Instead, he stole it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728083</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures versus digital photos...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247837160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>replying as anon to preserve moderation...</p><p>How did this get tagged insightful? The UK most certainly has fair use laws, they are just called fair dealings. This is also a question of public domain work, fair use is only applicable if the material is currently copyrighted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>replying as anon to preserve moderation...How did this get tagged insightful ?
The UK most certainly has fair use laws , they are just called fair dealings .
This is also a question of public domain work , fair use is only applicable if the material is currently copyrighted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>replying as anon to preserve moderation...How did this get tagged insightful?
The UK most certainly has fair use laws, they are just called fair dealings.
This is also a question of public domain work, fair use is only applicable if the material is currently copyrighted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28727991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728575</id>
	<title>Re:UK Law is not unclear</title>
	<author>Hope Thelps</author>
	<datestamp>1247840040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They can't charge someone in the UK for something they did in the US.</p></div><p>You certainly can charge someone in the UK for something they did in the US but that's not really relevant here since it's a civil, not criminal, matter. You can also sue someone in the UK for something they did in the US (which is relevant here) - whether you'll win is another matter and whether you'll ever be able to enforce judgment is another again - I doubt the NPG's case ever really will get off the ground.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That becomes an international law issue.</p></div><p>Uh... sort of I guess. Normally "international law" by itself would refer to public international law - which isn't really relevant here - but I guess you could say it's a matter of "private international law" i.e. Conflict of laws. Private international law of course is determined by the local domestic courts according to what the rules of their own country. The UK courts have their own rules on which cases they're willing to hear and which laws they'll apply to them. Those are the rules that matter in any case brought before the UK courts. The US courts likewise have their own rules. Those are the rules that matter in any case brought before the US courts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They ca n't charge someone in the UK for something they did in the US.You certainly can charge someone in the UK for something they did in the US but that 's not really relevant here since it 's a civil , not criminal , matter .
You can also sue someone in the UK for something they did in the US ( which is relevant here ) - whether you 'll win is another matter and whether you 'll ever be able to enforce judgment is another again - I doubt the NPG 's case ever really will get off the ground.That becomes an international law issue.Uh... sort of I guess .
Normally " international law " by itself would refer to public international law - which is n't really relevant here - but I guess you could say it 's a matter of " private international law " i.e .
Conflict of laws .
Private international law of course is determined by the local domestic courts according to what the rules of their own country .
The UK courts have their own rules on which cases they 're willing to hear and which laws they 'll apply to them .
Those are the rules that matter in any case brought before the UK courts .
The US courts likewise have their own rules .
Those are the rules that matter in any case brought before the US courts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can't charge someone in the UK for something they did in the US.You certainly can charge someone in the UK for something they did in the US but that's not really relevant here since it's a civil, not criminal, matter.
You can also sue someone in the UK for something they did in the US (which is relevant here) - whether you'll win is another matter and whether you'll ever be able to enforce judgment is another again - I doubt the NPG's case ever really will get off the ground.That becomes an international law issue.Uh... sort of I guess.
Normally "international law" by itself would refer to public international law - which isn't really relevant here - but I guess you could say it's a matter of "private international law" i.e.
Conflict of laws.
Private international law of course is determined by the local domestic courts according to what the rules of their own country.
The UK courts have their own rules on which cases they're willing to hear and which laws they'll apply to them.
Those are the rules that matter in any case brought before the UK courts.
The US courts likewise have their own rules.
Those are the rules that matter in any case brought before the US courts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728097</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures versus digital photos...</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1247837280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work as a graphic designer so I am fully aware of the hurdles you needed to overcome in copying the art. That said, there is no "artistry" in it. It is a mechanical process. You were not \_creative\_. Your work was, if anything, mechanical in nature. It should \_NOT\_ be covered by copyright. And, remember, I am a graphic designer (who has also worked as a writer and editor at various stages of my career) so copyrights are a big part of my livelihood. Mechanical reproduction, while important and valuable, is not creative. Sorry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work as a graphic designer so I am fully aware of the hurdles you needed to overcome in copying the art .
That said , there is no " artistry " in it .
It is a mechanical process .
You were not \ _creative \ _ .
Your work was , if anything , mechanical in nature .
It should \ _NOT \ _ be covered by copyright .
And , remember , I am a graphic designer ( who has also worked as a writer and editor at various stages of my career ) so copyrights are a big part of my livelihood .
Mechanical reproduction , while important and valuable , is not creative .
Sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work as a graphic designer so I am fully aware of the hurdles you needed to overcome in copying the art.
That said, there is no "artistry" in it.
It is a mechanical process.
You were not \_creative\_.
Your work was, if anything, mechanical in nature.
It should \_NOT\_ be covered by copyright.
And, remember, I am a graphic designer (who has also worked as a writer and editor at various stages of my career) so copyrights are a big part of my livelihood.
Mechanical reproduction, while important and valuable, is not creative.
Sorry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28727991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728389</id>
	<title>Soon, in the UK...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247839140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>(Young entrepreneur painstakingly copies letter-by-letter the Windows 7 source code, gets sued and heads to court)

<p>
The defense?
</p><p>
But I worked <i>hard</i> on it and spent a lot of time and money copying the code.


</p><p>Effort on its own means jackshit in this world (except maybe public schools), you need to actually produce something of its own merit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Young entrepreneur painstakingly copies letter-by-letter the Windows 7 source code , gets sued and heads to court ) The defense ?
But I worked hard on it and spent a lot of time and money copying the code .
Effort on its own means jackshit in this world ( except maybe public schools ) , you need to actually produce something of its own merit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Young entrepreneur painstakingly copies letter-by-letter the Windows 7 source code, gets sued and heads to court)


The defense?
But I worked hard on it and spent a lot of time and money copying the code.
Effort on its own means jackshit in this world (except maybe public schools), you need to actually produce something of its own merit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28731581</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures versus digital photos...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247852940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, in their normal function, photographers exercise artistic skill. But photographing a painting head on and making sure the lighting is sufficient to get all the nuances of the image (that the original artist creatively supplied) is not artistic skill. That's technical skill. If you were to photograph the painting from an odd angle, or use color tinting, or paint over the photograph, you would be doing something creative (or stupid, but Warhol got famous for just that).</p><p>If you could paint an exact replica of a famous painting, despite your enormous skill as an artist, I would argue that you wouldn't own a copyright to the painting, since it would just be an indistinguishable copy of the original. Sure, you could sell prints of your painting and show off your ability to paint forgeries, but the original creativity that went into choosing colors and subject matter and painting methods were all by the original artist, not you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , in their normal function , photographers exercise artistic skill .
But photographing a painting head on and making sure the lighting is sufficient to get all the nuances of the image ( that the original artist creatively supplied ) is not artistic skill .
That 's technical skill .
If you were to photograph the painting from an odd angle , or use color tinting , or paint over the photograph , you would be doing something creative ( or stupid , but Warhol got famous for just that ) .If you could paint an exact replica of a famous painting , despite your enormous skill as an artist , I would argue that you would n't own a copyright to the painting , since it would just be an indistinguishable copy of the original .
Sure , you could sell prints of your painting and show off your ability to paint forgeries , but the original creativity that went into choosing colors and subject matter and painting methods were all by the original artist , not you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, in their normal function, photographers exercise artistic skill.
But photographing a painting head on and making sure the lighting is sufficient to get all the nuances of the image (that the original artist creatively supplied) is not artistic skill.
That's technical skill.
If you were to photograph the painting from an odd angle, or use color tinting, or paint over the photograph, you would be doing something creative (or stupid, but Warhol got famous for just that).If you could paint an exact replica of a famous painting, despite your enormous skill as an artist, I would argue that you wouldn't own a copyright to the painting, since it would just be an indistinguishable copy of the original.
Sure, you could sell prints of your painting and show off your ability to paint forgeries, but the original creativity that went into choosing colors and subject matter and painting methods were all by the original artist, not you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28733695</id>
	<title>Re:Low tech solution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247862360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because there is a substantial amount of effort required to get "perfect" digital copies of the works. Ironically, it's "easy" to make derivative works of the paintings (which WOULD, without question, fall under copyright protection), but it's very "hard" to make images that are NOT covered by copyright. The technical difficulty of making the copies has nothing to do with their copyrightability though, only the artistry involved. In a case such as this, the artistry involved is zero, hence they're not copyrightable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because there is a substantial amount of effort required to get " perfect " digital copies of the works .
Ironically , it 's " easy " to make derivative works of the paintings ( which WOULD , without question , fall under copyright protection ) , but it 's very " hard " to make images that are NOT covered by copyright .
The technical difficulty of making the copies has nothing to do with their copyrightability though , only the artistry involved .
In a case such as this , the artistry involved is zero , hence they 're not copyrightable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because there is a substantial amount of effort required to get "perfect" digital copies of the works.
Ironically, it's "easy" to make derivative works of the paintings (which WOULD, without question, fall under copyright protection), but it's very "hard" to make images that are NOT covered by copyright.
The technical difficulty of making the copies has nothing to do with their copyrightability though, only the artistry involved.
In a case such as this, the artistry involved is zero, hence they're not copyrightable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28731325</id>
	<title>UK Law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247851800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that most posters are mistating UK law.  NPG's statement of the law are very carefully parsed and seem to say only that some photographs of out of copyright works could be copyrightable without actually making statements about protection of slavish copies.  In fact their statements are probably true about US law.  What is clear under US law, and is unclear but supported by some UK precedent is that a slavish, accurate, faithful copies of a public domain work, that look just like the public domain work (which involves for paintings a difficult, expensive, process) are not copyrightable.</p><p>OTOH, the UK does have database protection which protects collections of facts and data even where the underlying data/facts are not protectable or are public domain.  US law has nothing like this.  The database copyright is designed specifically to protect the sweat of the brow effort in assembling collections data.  Further, there can be questions about how the photographs were accessed.  I think NPG has a better shot at applying this law as well as some of the other causes of action involving misappropriation of their computer facilities, maybe trespass, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that most posters are mistating UK law .
NPG 's statement of the law are very carefully parsed and seem to say only that some photographs of out of copyright works could be copyrightable without actually making statements about protection of slavish copies .
In fact their statements are probably true about US law .
What is clear under US law , and is unclear but supported by some UK precedent is that a slavish , accurate , faithful copies of a public domain work , that look just like the public domain work ( which involves for paintings a difficult , expensive , process ) are not copyrightable.OTOH , the UK does have database protection which protects collections of facts and data even where the underlying data/facts are not protectable or are public domain .
US law has nothing like this .
The database copyright is designed specifically to protect the sweat of the brow effort in assembling collections data .
Further , there can be questions about how the photographs were accessed .
I think NPG has a better shot at applying this law as well as some of the other causes of action involving misappropriation of their computer facilities , maybe trespass , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that most posters are mistating UK law.
NPG's statement of the law are very carefully parsed and seem to say only that some photographs of out of copyright works could be copyrightable without actually making statements about protection of slavish copies.
In fact their statements are probably true about US law.
What is clear under US law, and is unclear but supported by some UK precedent is that a slavish, accurate, faithful copies of a public domain work, that look just like the public domain work (which involves for paintings a difficult, expensive, process) are not copyrightable.OTOH, the UK does have database protection which protects collections of facts and data even where the underlying data/facts are not protectable or are public domain.
US law has nothing like this.
The database copyright is designed specifically to protect the sweat of the brow effort in assembling collections data.
Further, there can be questions about how the photographs were accessed.
I think NPG has a better shot at applying this law as well as some of the other causes of action involving misappropriation of their computer facilities, maybe trespass, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730045</id>
	<title>Re:NPG = Free Entry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247846460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a difference.  Your photograph was still within it's copyright period.</p><p>Copyright extends to 70 years past the author's death (in the UK).  Since you are still alive, any photograph you take is obviously still within it's copyright - with one caveat.</p><p>The caveat is exactly what is at issue.  You cannot claim copyright on a direct copy of someone else's work.  You CAN claim copyright on a DERIVATIVE work.  So the question here is was the photograph of the painting a derivative work?</p><p>The goal of the photograph was to reproduce the painting in digital form exactly as it was meant to be viewed in the gallery.  No changes were made, and the painting was not used as the basis for a new work (even a person standing next to it within the shot is a 'derivative' work).  Which would mean the photographs in question were NOT derivative works, but merely digital copies of the original, and not copyrightable in and of themselves (they would piggy back on the original copyright).</p><p>Which means any digital image of a painting that is in the public domain, is also public domain - as it is not a derivative artwork.  And you cannot steal something that is public domain.</p><p>In your case, yes, someone stole your art work, because it IS within it's copyright.  And regardless of whether they stole a print, the digital image, or any other faithful reproduction of your photograph, it would still be counted as illegally copying of your work.  But 70 years after you die, anyone and their dog can take your image with impunity.  They can even take the image of someone else's photograph of your image on a screen (as long as it's not altered in any way).</p><p>So as someone else said, yes, it might take a lot of technical expertise to faithfully capture these images to do them justice, but that does not suddenly give the person taking them copyright on what is, essentially, a faithful reproduction of the original artwork not a derivative.</p><p>By way of example, how about we take the works of Shakespear.  Originally released in manuscript form.  Someone took that manuscript and typed it into computer text files.  Does that mean that person now has copyright on the resulting text file?  It certainly took a lot of effort to transcribe the text - but it doesn't matter.  Just because it took a lot of effort to do something (it takes a lot of effort to paint a forgery, too) does not infer copyright - if the text is identical to the original shakespear, then it is just a faithful reproduction on another medium and still int he public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a difference .
Your photograph was still within it 's copyright period.Copyright extends to 70 years past the author 's death ( in the UK ) .
Since you are still alive , any photograph you take is obviously still within it 's copyright - with one caveat.The caveat is exactly what is at issue .
You can not claim copyright on a direct copy of someone else 's work .
You CAN claim copyright on a DERIVATIVE work .
So the question here is was the photograph of the painting a derivative work ? The goal of the photograph was to reproduce the painting in digital form exactly as it was meant to be viewed in the gallery .
No changes were made , and the painting was not used as the basis for a new work ( even a person standing next to it within the shot is a 'derivative ' work ) .
Which would mean the photographs in question were NOT derivative works , but merely digital copies of the original , and not copyrightable in and of themselves ( they would piggy back on the original copyright ) .Which means any digital image of a painting that is in the public domain , is also public domain - as it is not a derivative artwork .
And you can not steal something that is public domain.In your case , yes , someone stole your art work , because it IS within it 's copyright .
And regardless of whether they stole a print , the digital image , or any other faithful reproduction of your photograph , it would still be counted as illegally copying of your work .
But 70 years after you die , anyone and their dog can take your image with impunity .
They can even take the image of someone else 's photograph of your image on a screen ( as long as it 's not altered in any way ) .So as someone else said , yes , it might take a lot of technical expertise to faithfully capture these images to do them justice , but that does not suddenly give the person taking them copyright on what is , essentially , a faithful reproduction of the original artwork not a derivative.By way of example , how about we take the works of Shakespear .
Originally released in manuscript form .
Someone took that manuscript and typed it into computer text files .
Does that mean that person now has copyright on the resulting text file ?
It certainly took a lot of effort to transcribe the text - but it does n't matter .
Just because it took a lot of effort to do something ( it takes a lot of effort to paint a forgery , too ) does not infer copyright - if the text is identical to the original shakespear , then it is just a faithful reproduction on another medium and still int he public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a difference.
Your photograph was still within it's copyright period.Copyright extends to 70 years past the author's death (in the UK).
Since you are still alive, any photograph you take is obviously still within it's copyright - with one caveat.The caveat is exactly what is at issue.
You cannot claim copyright on a direct copy of someone else's work.
You CAN claim copyright on a DERIVATIVE work.
So the question here is was the photograph of the painting a derivative work?The goal of the photograph was to reproduce the painting in digital form exactly as it was meant to be viewed in the gallery.
No changes were made, and the painting was not used as the basis for a new work (even a person standing next to it within the shot is a 'derivative' work).
Which would mean the photographs in question were NOT derivative works, but merely digital copies of the original, and not copyrightable in and of themselves (they would piggy back on the original copyright).Which means any digital image of a painting that is in the public domain, is also public domain - as it is not a derivative artwork.
And you cannot steal something that is public domain.In your case, yes, someone stole your art work, because it IS within it's copyright.
And regardless of whether they stole a print, the digital image, or any other faithful reproduction of your photograph, it would still be counted as illegally copying of your work.
But 70 years after you die, anyone and their dog can take your image with impunity.
They can even take the image of someone else's photograph of your image on a screen (as long as it's not altered in any way).So as someone else said, yes, it might take a lot of technical expertise to faithfully capture these images to do them justice, but that does not suddenly give the person taking them copyright on what is, essentially, a faithful reproduction of the original artwork not a derivative.By way of example, how about we take the works of Shakespear.
Originally released in manuscript form.
Someone took that manuscript and typed it into computer text files.
Does that mean that person now has copyright on the resulting text file?
It certainly took a lot of effort to transcribe the text - but it doesn't matter.
Just because it took a lot of effort to do something (it takes a lot of effort to paint a forgery, too) does not infer copyright - if the text is identical to the original shakespear, then it is just a faithful reproduction on another medium and still int he public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728631</id>
	<title>Re:Music, Movies, Books,.. Museums next</title>
	<author>delt0r</author>
	<datestamp>1247840340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the UK they are free. In France the Louvre was something like 5EU and others were at similar prices. Here in Vienna many places are free while most are cheaper than a movie ticket.  And no digital copy's will not affect museum patronage any more that  photos of mountains stop people climbing them.
<br> <br>
The <a href="http://free1000s.blogspot.com/2008/06/leonardo-da-vinci-mona-lisa-1503-5.html" title="blogspot.com">Mona Lisa</a> [blogspot.com] is available online, yet guess what the busiest room in the Louvre is?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the UK they are free .
In France the Louvre was something like 5EU and others were at similar prices .
Here in Vienna many places are free while most are cheaper than a movie ticket .
And no digital copy 's will not affect museum patronage any more that photos of mountains stop people climbing them .
The Mona Lisa [ blogspot.com ] is available online , yet guess what the busiest room in the Louvre is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the UK they are free.
In France the Louvre was something like 5EU and others were at similar prices.
Here in Vienna many places are free while most are cheaper than a movie ticket.
And no digital copy's will not affect museum patronage any more that  photos of mountains stop people climbing them.
The Mona Lisa [blogspot.com] is available online, yet guess what the busiest room in the Louvre is?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28733039</id>
	<title>who pays for museums? taxpayers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247859120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>therefore taxpayers should get access to what they have payed for</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>therefore taxpayers should get access to what they have payed for</tokentext>
<sentencetext>therefore taxpayers should get access to what they have payed for</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28727991</id>
	<title>Pictures versus digital photos...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247836260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fully agree that the paintings are in the public domain, but it does NOT mean that the digital photos are.  If he created his own photos, he could post them.  The only question is whether or not a straight copy of a work can be copyrighted on its own... which is why the museum is arguing that artistry went into creating them.</p><p>Having done museum copywork in the past, I can assure you that getting high-quality images of paintings is NOT simple - lighting is critical to capture the texture, color, and avoid reflections and shadows.  It's not just point-and-click.  I'd side with the museum here, sorry!</p><p>madCow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fully agree that the paintings are in the public domain , but it does NOT mean that the digital photos are .
If he created his own photos , he could post them .
The only question is whether or not a straight copy of a work can be copyrighted on its own... which is why the museum is arguing that artistry went into creating them.Having done museum copywork in the past , I can assure you that getting high-quality images of paintings is NOT simple - lighting is critical to capture the texture , color , and avoid reflections and shadows .
It 's not just point-and-click .
I 'd side with the museum here , sorry ! madCow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fully agree that the paintings are in the public domain, but it does NOT mean that the digital photos are.
If he created his own photos, he could post them.
The only question is whether or not a straight copy of a work can be copyrighted on its own... which is why the museum is arguing that artistry went into creating them.Having done museum copywork in the past, I can assure you that getting high-quality images of paintings is NOT simple - lighting is critical to capture the texture, color, and avoid reflections and shadows.
It's not just point-and-click.
I'd side with the museum here, sorry!madCow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728267</id>
	<title>Re:UK Law is not unclear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247838420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a professional photographer.  Making good images of paintings is not easy.... yes, there is significant work involved for the level of quality images in this case.  BUT, the degree of work involved is needed in order to achieve an exact duplication and to NOT insert any changes due to light falloff, focal plane shifts, reflective artifacts, etc.  So while a good deal of work, talent, and skill is needed to do it right, there is nothing creative added to the result.</p><p>A photograph of something in the public domain, where the photographer adds some creative element, yes, will be copyrighted.... but there must be some creative element added.  Doing work to make the copy an exact duplicate (i.e the elimination of any change -- creative or otherwise) is not copyrightable.  This is no different than taking a music recording that is in the public domain, and copying it from the record to a CD, versus performing it live and recording the performance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a professional photographer .
Making good images of paintings is not easy.... yes , there is significant work involved for the level of quality images in this case .
BUT , the degree of work involved is needed in order to achieve an exact duplication and to NOT insert any changes due to light falloff , focal plane shifts , reflective artifacts , etc .
So while a good deal of work , talent , and skill is needed to do it right , there is nothing creative added to the result.A photograph of something in the public domain , where the photographer adds some creative element , yes , will be copyrighted.... but there must be some creative element added .
Doing work to make the copy an exact duplicate ( i.e the elimination of any change -- creative or otherwise ) is not copyrightable .
This is no different than taking a music recording that is in the public domain , and copying it from the record to a CD , versus performing it live and recording the performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a professional photographer.
Making good images of paintings is not easy.... yes, there is significant work involved for the level of quality images in this case.
BUT, the degree of work involved is needed in order to achieve an exact duplication and to NOT insert any changes due to light falloff, focal plane shifts, reflective artifacts, etc.
So while a good deal of work, talent, and skill is needed to do it right, there is nothing creative added to the result.A photograph of something in the public domain, where the photographer adds some creative element, yes, will be copyrighted.... but there must be some creative element added.
Doing work to make the copy an exact duplicate (i.e the elimination of any change -- creative or otherwise) is not copyrightable.
This is no different than taking a music recording that is in the public domain, and copying it from the record to a CD, versus performing it live and recording the performance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729633</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a Robin Hood story</title>
	<author>Richard W.M. Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1247844780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Utter nonsense.  As a UK taxpayer, I already paid for the NPG to
digitize these pictures.
</p><p>Rich.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Utter nonsense .
As a UK taxpayer , I already paid for the NPG to digitize these pictures .
Rich .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Utter nonsense.
As a UK taxpayer, I already paid for the NPG to
digitize these pictures.
Rich.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728181</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a Robin Hood story</title>
	<author>nyctopterus</author>
	<datestamp>1247837880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The situation is problematic, I agree. However, I think museums need something of a shakeup on this issue. Natural history museums, in particular, need to make photographs of specimens much more easily available for research. Most of these museums have government funding streams, and should see the digital dissemination of their collections as part of their mission, not merely as revenue. Their collections are all to often jealously guarded, which is what making them public institutions is supposed to avoid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The situation is problematic , I agree .
However , I think museums need something of a shakeup on this issue .
Natural history museums , in particular , need to make photographs of specimens much more easily available for research .
Most of these museums have government funding streams , and should see the digital dissemination of their collections as part of their mission , not merely as revenue .
Their collections are all to often jealously guarded , which is what making them public institutions is supposed to avoid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The situation is problematic, I agree.
However, I think museums need something of a shakeup on this issue.
Natural history museums, in particular, need to make photographs of specimens much more easily available for research.
Most of these museums have government funding streams, and should see the digital dissemination of their collections as part of their mission, not merely as revenue.
Their collections are all to often jealously guarded, which is what making them public institutions is supposed to avoid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728047</id>
	<title>Who are these cowboys?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247836740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So according to the National Portrait Gallery, the WMF ignored their initial attempts to communicate with them. Now they're responding by website???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So according to the National Portrait Gallery , the WMF ignored their initial attempts to communicate with them .
Now they 're responding by website ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So according to the National Portrait Gallery, the WMF ignored their initial attempts to communicate with them.
Now they're responding by website??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728457</id>
	<title>Re:UK Law is not unclear</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1247839440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There seems to be conflicting information on what's going on.</p><p>It sounds like the guy didn't take any photos himself but simply copied photos taken by a professional photographer for the NPG off of the NPG site.</p><p>Judging by the original solicitors letter etc. he has simply copied all the images from the NPG site and posted them to Wikipedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There seems to be conflicting information on what 's going on.It sounds like the guy did n't take any photos himself but simply copied photos taken by a professional photographer for the NPG off of the NPG site.Judging by the original solicitors letter etc .
he has simply copied all the images from the NPG site and posted them to Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There seems to be conflicting information on what's going on.It sounds like the guy didn't take any photos himself but simply copied photos taken by a professional photographer for the NPG off of the NPG site.Judging by the original solicitors letter etc.
he has simply copied all the images from the NPG site and posted them to Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730297</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a Robin Hood story</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1247847480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your argument reduces to; "Many current funding models rely on monopoly control of information, therefore, not everything should be in the public domain."</p><p>My retort: "Evolve or Die". We had museums long before we gift shops with photographs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your argument reduces to ; " Many current funding models rely on monopoly control of information , therefore , not everything should be in the public domain .
" My retort : " Evolve or Die " .
We had museums long before we gift shops with photographs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your argument reduces to; "Many current funding models rely on monopoly control of information, therefore, not everything should be in the public domain.
"My retort: "Evolve or Die".
We had museums long before we gift shops with photographs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728091</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures versus digital photos...</title>
	<author>Hope Thelps</author>
	<datestamp>1247837280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Likewise, while it may not be easy to photograph one of these works, you are certainly not adding anything to the actual content of the image; indeed, you are actively trying not to. Technical expertise went into creating them, yes. Artistry, no.</p></div><p>That's like claiming that you're not adding anything when photographing a person. Realistically, we know that in either situation the photographer is applying their creative skill and making choices and judgments about what aspects to capture. The photograph will NOT be exactly the same as the original - it's a representation. Capturing the texture and the qualities of the canvas, deciding what lighting to use (and let's face it that affects the colour, the perception of the texture, everything), the angle to use... there is every bit as much creativity in applying these choices to photogrsphing a painting as in photographing anything else. Pretending that it's eqivalent to chucking something on the photocopier and pressing a button is silly.</p><p>Yo may "try not to" make any artistic choices in photographing a painting just as you may "try not to" when photographing a person but realistically you have to. And in either case the photographers are exercising artistic skills.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Likewise , while it may not be easy to photograph one of these works , you are certainly not adding anything to the actual content of the image ; indeed , you are actively trying not to .
Technical expertise went into creating them , yes .
Artistry , no.That 's like claiming that you 're not adding anything when photographing a person .
Realistically , we know that in either situation the photographer is applying their creative skill and making choices and judgments about what aspects to capture .
The photograph will NOT be exactly the same as the original - it 's a representation .
Capturing the texture and the qualities of the canvas , deciding what lighting to use ( and let 's face it that affects the colour , the perception of the texture , everything ) , the angle to use... there is every bit as much creativity in applying these choices to photogrsphing a painting as in photographing anything else .
Pretending that it 's eqivalent to chucking something on the photocopier and pressing a button is silly.Yo may " try not to " make any artistic choices in photographing a painting just as you may " try not to " when photographing a person but realistically you have to .
And in either case the photographers are exercising artistic skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Likewise, while it may not be easy to photograph one of these works, you are certainly not adding anything to the actual content of the image; indeed, you are actively trying not to.
Technical expertise went into creating them, yes.
Artistry, no.That's like claiming that you're not adding anything when photographing a person.
Realistically, we know that in either situation the photographer is applying their creative skill and making choices and judgments about what aspects to capture.
The photograph will NOT be exactly the same as the original - it's a representation.
Capturing the texture and the qualities of the canvas, deciding what lighting to use (and let's face it that affects the colour, the perception of the texture, everything), the angle to use... there is every bit as much creativity in applying these choices to photogrsphing a painting as in photographing anything else.
Pretending that it's eqivalent to chucking something on the photocopier and pressing a button is silly.Yo may "try not to" make any artistic choices in photographing a painting just as you may "try not to" when photographing a person but realistically you have to.
And in either case the photographers are exercising artistic skills.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729403</id>
	<title>UK gallery, UK law, US contributor *headscratch*</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1247843700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh dear, another confusing international internet legal kerfuffle.  I'm not really clear what jurisdiction the British courts are going to have over this guy.</p><p>I'm moderately sympathetic to the NPG in this case - although, as noted, they are government-funded, it is UK taxes that fund it.  They're *also* funded by licensing these photographs, AFAIK and by other donations, grants, etc.  Given that, I can understand why they want to keep a revenue stream and also why they don't feel the need to provide images free-of-charge to the rest of the world (though it's human culture, so I also think it'd be somewhat unfair to deny the rest of the world access - although they have, evidently, made these pictures available on their website).  Given UK law doesn't definitively place these photographs in the public domain, I can see why they think they have a legal leg to stand on - except for the (large) matter of jurisdiction, which I can't understand how they're going to argue / enforce.</p><p>Despite all my sympathies for the gallery's predicament, I would *love* to see the EFF come over here and argue the case successfully so that we can set a legal precedent and have a stronger public domain.  It's not that I'm against the NPG, it's that I want our laws improved<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Also: wouldn't it help if the WMF foundation published the legal threats they'd received?  They claim in the blog entry that they were quite aggressive but I've not actually seen the real letters.  The letter to the individual contributor seemed quite pleasant and constructive, as legal threats go.  Although I guess it's possible that they'd be more formal / aggressive when addressing an "organisation" than an individual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh dear , another confusing international internet legal kerfuffle .
I 'm not really clear what jurisdiction the British courts are going to have over this guy.I 'm moderately sympathetic to the NPG in this case - although , as noted , they are government-funded , it is UK taxes that fund it .
They 're * also * funded by licensing these photographs , AFAIK and by other donations , grants , etc .
Given that , I can understand why they want to keep a revenue stream and also why they do n't feel the need to provide images free-of-charge to the rest of the world ( though it 's human culture , so I also think it 'd be somewhat unfair to deny the rest of the world access - although they have , evidently , made these pictures available on their website ) .
Given UK law does n't definitively place these photographs in the public domain , I can see why they think they have a legal leg to stand on - except for the ( large ) matter of jurisdiction , which I ca n't understand how they 're going to argue / enforce.Despite all my sympathies for the gallery 's predicament , I would * love * to see the EFF come over here and argue the case successfully so that we can set a legal precedent and have a stronger public domain .
It 's not that I 'm against the NPG , it 's that I want our laws improved ; - ) Also : would n't it help if the WMF foundation published the legal threats they 'd received ?
They claim in the blog entry that they were quite aggressive but I 've not actually seen the real letters .
The letter to the individual contributor seemed quite pleasant and constructive , as legal threats go .
Although I guess it 's possible that they 'd be more formal / aggressive when addressing an " organisation " than an individual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh dear, another confusing international internet legal kerfuffle.
I'm not really clear what jurisdiction the British courts are going to have over this guy.I'm moderately sympathetic to the NPG in this case - although, as noted, they are government-funded, it is UK taxes that fund it.
They're *also* funded by licensing these photographs, AFAIK and by other donations, grants, etc.
Given that, I can understand why they want to keep a revenue stream and also why they don't feel the need to provide images free-of-charge to the rest of the world (though it's human culture, so I also think it'd be somewhat unfair to deny the rest of the world access - although they have, evidently, made these pictures available on their website).
Given UK law doesn't definitively place these photographs in the public domain, I can see why they think they have a legal leg to stand on - except for the (large) matter of jurisdiction, which I can't understand how they're going to argue / enforce.Despite all my sympathies for the gallery's predicament, I would *love* to see the EFF come over here and argue the case successfully so that we can set a legal precedent and have a stronger public domain.
It's not that I'm against the NPG, it's that I want our laws improved ;-)Also: wouldn't it help if the WMF foundation published the legal threats they'd received?
They claim in the blog entry that they were quite aggressive but I've not actually seen the real letters.
The letter to the individual contributor seemed quite pleasant and constructive, as legal threats go.
Although I guess it's possible that they'd be more formal / aggressive when addressing an "organisation" than an individual.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28737283</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a Robin Hood story</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1247840400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright is intended to incentivize creative work, not give museums a steady income. These institutions are also already heavily subsidized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright is intended to incentivize creative work , not give museums a steady income .
These institutions are also already heavily subsidized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright is intended to incentivize creative work, not give museums a steady income.
These institutions are also already heavily subsidized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28732013</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures versus digital photos...</title>
	<author>xDraveNx</author>
	<datestamp>1247854680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's like claiming that you're not adding anything when photographing a person. </p></div><p>So wrong, taking a person's picture is an original work.  Using your analogy it would be more like "claiming your not adding anything when photographing a photograph of a person".  Basically if your work is not changing the original it is not derivative and thus not new(or newish), amount of time and effort spent do not factor in originality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's like claiming that you 're not adding anything when photographing a person .
So wrong , taking a person 's picture is an original work .
Using your analogy it would be more like " claiming your not adding anything when photographing a photograph of a person " .
Basically if your work is not changing the original it is not derivative and thus not new ( or newish ) , amount of time and effort spent do not factor in originality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's like claiming that you're not adding anything when photographing a person.
So wrong, taking a person's picture is an original work.
Using your analogy it would be more like "claiming your not adding anything when photographing a photograph of a person".
Basically if your work is not changing the original it is not derivative and thus not new(or newish), amount of time and effort spent do not factor in originality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728951</id>
	<title>About copyright</title>
	<author>Sudline</author>
	<datestamp>1247841840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I made my own digitalized copy of these public images and my copy is very similar to that of NPG, who is the owner? My work has the same value that their.
I wonder how they can copyright a work!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I made my own digitalized copy of these public images and my copy is very similar to that of NPG , who is the owner ?
My work has the same value that their .
I wonder how they can copyright a work !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I made my own digitalized copy of these public images and my copy is very similar to that of NPG, who is the owner?
My work has the same value that their.
I wonder how they can copyright a work!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28751659</id>
	<title>Re:Try doing the same in the US</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1248011940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They charge for the images because people will pay for them.  Remember the pet rock?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They charge for the images because people will pay for them .
Remember the pet rock ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They charge for the images because people will pay for them.
Remember the pet rock?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728919</id>
	<title>Re:NPG = Free Entry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247841780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Instead, he stole it.</p></div><p>Oh, he stole it.  That a whole nuther thing.  So how exactly did he remove the original?  What's that?  The museum still has their copy?  I guess there was no theft involved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead , he stole it.Oh , he stole it .
That a whole nuther thing .
So how exactly did he remove the original ?
What 's that ?
The museum still has their copy ?
I guess there was no theft involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Instead, he stole it.Oh, he stole it.
That a whole nuther thing.
So how exactly did he remove the original?
What's that?
The museum still has their copy?
I guess there was no theft involved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28734729</id>
	<title>Re:UK Law is not unclear</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1247823540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I seem to recall that people from the UK have been extradited to the US and charged, for things they did in the UK that the UK authorities decided were legal (or at least things that they should not be prosecuted for).</p></div><p>Those are not the same thing.  Just because a particular crime isn't so important to you, and you aren't willing to invest resources into prosecuting it, doesn't mean you have any reason to be uncooperative if someone else wants to prosecute it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And a certain Russian programmer was arrested and jailed in the US for things he did in Russia that were legal there...  remember that one ?</p></div><p>Because he entered the US.  Every country can prosecute someone who enters its territory, modulo diplomatic objections from their home countries.  Travelers can decide whether they want to take that risk or not.  But Russia would not have extradited Skylarov to the US, and nor should the US extradite Dcoetzee to the UK (if it comes to that, which I doubt).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to recall that people from the UK have been extradited to the US and charged , for things they did in the UK that the UK authorities decided were legal ( or at least things that they should not be prosecuted for ) .Those are not the same thing .
Just because a particular crime is n't so important to you , and you are n't willing to invest resources into prosecuting it , does n't mean you have any reason to be uncooperative if someone else wants to prosecute it.And a certain Russian programmer was arrested and jailed in the US for things he did in Russia that were legal there... remember that one ? Because he entered the US .
Every country can prosecute someone who enters its territory , modulo diplomatic objections from their home countries .
Travelers can decide whether they want to take that risk or not .
But Russia would not have extradited Skylarov to the US , and nor should the US extradite Dcoetzee to the UK ( if it comes to that , which I doubt ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to recall that people from the UK have been extradited to the US and charged, for things they did in the UK that the UK authorities decided were legal (or at least things that they should not be prosecuted for).Those are not the same thing.
Just because a particular crime isn't so important to you, and you aren't willing to invest resources into prosecuting it, doesn't mean you have any reason to be uncooperative if someone else wants to prosecute it.And a certain Russian programmer was arrested and jailed in the US for things he did in Russia that were legal there...  remember that one ?Because he entered the US.
Every country can prosecute someone who enters its territory, modulo diplomatic objections from their home countries.
Travelers can decide whether they want to take that risk or not.
But Russia would not have extradited Skylarov to the US, and nor should the US extradite Dcoetzee to the UK (if it comes to that, which I doubt).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28733285</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures versus digital photos...</title>
	<author>MattXBlack</author>
	<datestamp>1247860500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is not a good comparison. Photographing a person is translating a 3D scene into a 2D image; photographing a portrait is replicating a 2D image into a 2D image as closely as possible.

There are infinite number of different images that could be generated from a 3D scene. There is only 1 image that could result from faithful reproduction of another 2D image,</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is not a good comparison .
Photographing a person is translating a 3D scene into a 2D image ; photographing a portrait is replicating a 2D image into a 2D image as closely as possible .
There are infinite number of different images that could be generated from a 3D scene .
There is only 1 image that could result from faithful reproduction of another 2D image,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is not a good comparison.
Photographing a person is translating a 3D scene into a 2D image; photographing a portrait is replicating a 2D image into a 2D image as closely as possible.
There are infinite number of different images that could be generated from a 3D scene.
There is only 1 image that could result from faithful reproduction of another 2D image,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729211</id>
	<title>Try doing the same in the US</title>
	<author>benwiggy</author>
	<datestamp>1247842920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If US law is so clear (that copies of public domain works are themselves public domain), then can anyone explain to me why Getty Images charges me full whack for pictures of works of art from days gone by; and gives me chapter and verse about what I can do with the images?<p>
Anyone care to try posting some images from Getty on Wiki....?</p><p>
<a href="http://www.gettyimages.com/Corporate/LicenseInfo.aspx" title="gettyimages.com">http://www.gettyimages.com/Corporate/LicenseInfo.aspx</a> [gettyimages.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If US law is so clear ( that copies of public domain works are themselves public domain ) , then can anyone explain to me why Getty Images charges me full whack for pictures of works of art from days gone by ; and gives me chapter and verse about what I can do with the images ?
Anyone care to try posting some images from Getty on Wiki.... ?
http : //www.gettyimages.com/Corporate/LicenseInfo.aspx [ gettyimages.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If US law is so clear (that copies of public domain works are themselves public domain), then can anyone explain to me why Getty Images charges me full whack for pictures of works of art from days gone by; and gives me chapter and verse about what I can do with the images?
Anyone care to try posting some images from Getty on Wiki....?
http://www.gettyimages.com/Corporate/LicenseInfo.aspx [gettyimages.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728209</id>
	<title>Music, Movies, Books,.. Museums next</title>
	<author>martijnd</author>
	<datestamp>1247838000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Musuems have collected and preserved much of the worlds cultural heritage. But at the same time they severely limit the publics enjoyment of the art and artifacts they seek to preserve.</p><p>I enjoy visiting a museum on occasion, but entry prices are usually extremely high and in the time that I have available I can usually only browse the highlights (from a respectul distance that hurts my eyes and blurs any details).  Quick browses of paintings that their authors have spend weeks, or months on. You can ofen buy (expensive) books with again the same highlights of the collection, but not on a 1:1 scale.</p><p>High res scans would make all of this available to a much wider audience; worldwide, 24-7. Let them store that fragile 400+ year old painting in a secure bunker. Its the painting I am interested in, not the canvas.</p><p>Of course this would also make the museum obsolete; and kill off some major tourist attractions -- so expect some resistance from the old guard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Musuems have collected and preserved much of the worlds cultural heritage .
But at the same time they severely limit the publics enjoyment of the art and artifacts they seek to preserve.I enjoy visiting a museum on occasion , but entry prices are usually extremely high and in the time that I have available I can usually only browse the highlights ( from a respectul distance that hurts my eyes and blurs any details ) .
Quick browses of paintings that their authors have spend weeks , or months on .
You can ofen buy ( expensive ) books with again the same highlights of the collection , but not on a 1 : 1 scale.High res scans would make all of this available to a much wider audience ; worldwide , 24-7 .
Let them store that fragile 400 + year old painting in a secure bunker .
Its the painting I am interested in , not the canvas.Of course this would also make the museum obsolete ; and kill off some major tourist attractions -- so expect some resistance from the old guard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Musuems have collected and preserved much of the worlds cultural heritage.
But at the same time they severely limit the publics enjoyment of the art and artifacts they seek to preserve.I enjoy visiting a museum on occasion, but entry prices are usually extremely high and in the time that I have available I can usually only browse the highlights (from a respectul distance that hurts my eyes and blurs any details).
Quick browses of paintings that their authors have spend weeks, or months on.
You can ofen buy (expensive) books with again the same highlights of the collection, but not on a 1:1 scale.High res scans would make all of this available to a much wider audience; worldwide, 24-7.
Let them store that fragile 400+ year old painting in a secure bunker.
Its the painting I am interested in, not the canvas.Of course this would also make the museum obsolete; and kill off some major tourist attractions -- so expect some resistance from the old guard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28731083</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a Robin Hood story</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1247850720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The museum doesn't allow photography, meaning they are the only ones capable of making any digital copies of the paintings. Then they did the digitizing work themselves and handed out the work for free to a country where the images have no copyright status. Everything is their fault. And through all this their stated mission is to "promote the appreciation and understanding of portraiture in all media [...] to as wide a range of visitors as possible" but all of their actions are exactly the opposite of this. They are severely restricting access to the paintings to maximize the museum's income.</p><p>If I needed to choose, I'd rather have freedom than museums.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The museum does n't allow photography , meaning they are the only ones capable of making any digital copies of the paintings .
Then they did the digitizing work themselves and handed out the work for free to a country where the images have no copyright status .
Everything is their fault .
And through all this their stated mission is to " promote the appreciation and understanding of portraiture in all media [ ... ] to as wide a range of visitors as possible " but all of their actions are exactly the opposite of this .
They are severely restricting access to the paintings to maximize the museum 's income.If I needed to choose , I 'd rather have freedom than museums .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The museum doesn't allow photography, meaning they are the only ones capable of making any digital copies of the paintings.
Then they did the digitizing work themselves and handed out the work for free to a country where the images have no copyright status.
Everything is their fault.
And through all this their stated mission is to "promote the appreciation and understanding of portraiture in all media [...] to as wide a range of visitors as possible" but all of their actions are exactly the opposite of this.
They are severely restricting access to the paintings to maximize the museum's income.If I needed to choose, I'd rather have freedom than museums.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28735089</id>
	<title>Re:Try doing the same in the US</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1247825400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
Anyone care to try posting some images from Getty on Wiki....?</p></div><p>Feel free, as long as they're verifiably slavish copies of out-of-copyright works.  Wikimedia's stance on the issue is crystal-clear, no one will delete them.  There are already some Getty images on Commons marked as public domain, like <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cobbe\_portrait\_of\_Shakespeare.jpg" title="wikimedia.org">this portrait of Shakespeare</a> [wikimedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone care to try posting some images from Getty on Wiki.... ? Feel free , as long as they 're verifiably slavish copies of out-of-copyright works .
Wikimedia 's stance on the issue is crystal-clear , no one will delete them .
There are already some Getty images on Commons marked as public domain , like this portrait of Shakespeare [ wikimedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Anyone care to try posting some images from Getty on Wiki....?Feel free, as long as they're verifiably slavish copies of out-of-copyright works.
Wikimedia's stance on the issue is crystal-clear, no one will delete them.
There are already some Getty images on Commons marked as public domain, like this portrait of Shakespeare [wikimedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728697</id>
	<title>Re:UK Law is not unclear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247840640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seem to recall that people from the UK have been extradited to the US and charged, for things they did in the UK that the UK authorities decided were legal (or at least things that they should not be prosecuted for).</p><p>And a certain Russian programmer was arrested and jailed in the US for things he did in Russia that were legal there...  remember that one ?</p><p>Why should the reverse not apply ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to recall that people from the UK have been extradited to the US and charged , for things they did in the UK that the UK authorities decided were legal ( or at least things that they should not be prosecuted for ) .And a certain Russian programmer was arrested and jailed in the US for things he did in Russia that were legal there... remember that one ? Why should the reverse not apply ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to recall that people from the UK have been extradited to the US and charged, for things they did in the UK that the UK authorities decided were legal (or at least things that they should not be prosecuted for).And a certain Russian programmer was arrested and jailed in the US for things he did in Russia that were legal there...  remember that one ?Why should the reverse not apply ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728429</id>
	<title>Re:Music, Movies, Books,.. Museums next</title>
	<author>notseamus</author>
	<datestamp>1247839260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.spanisharts.com/prado/prado.htm" title="spanisharts.com">http://www.spanisharts.com/prado/prado.htm</a> [spanisharts.com]</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/intl/en/landing/prado/" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/intl/en/landing/prado/</a> [google.com]</p><p>El Prado, Spain's biggest museum offers high resolution reproductions of its collection through google earth, and probably elsewhere too. They're such high quality you can get down to brush strokes.</p><p>Although IMO, there's something about seeing the painting/art work in person that can't be replaced by viewing it on a monitor. Something is lost if you see it on screen, especially if the space that you visit it in is repurposed or designed for the piece in question. This especially applies to sculpture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.spanisharts.com/prado/prado.htm [ spanisharts.com ] http : //www.google.com/intl/en/landing/prado/ [ google.com ] El Prado , Spain 's biggest museum offers high resolution reproductions of its collection through google earth , and probably elsewhere too .
They 're such high quality you can get down to brush strokes.Although IMO , there 's something about seeing the painting/art work in person that ca n't be replaced by viewing it on a monitor .
Something is lost if you see it on screen , especially if the space that you visit it in is repurposed or designed for the piece in question .
This especially applies to sculpture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.spanisharts.com/prado/prado.htm [spanisharts.com]http://www.google.com/intl/en/landing/prado/ [google.com]El Prado, Spain's biggest museum offers high resolution reproductions of its collection through google earth, and probably elsewhere too.
They're such high quality you can get down to brush strokes.Although IMO, there's something about seeing the painting/art work in person that can't be replaced by viewing it on a monitor.
Something is lost if you see it on screen, especially if the space that you visit it in is repurposed or designed for the piece in question.
This especially applies to sculpture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729391</id>
	<title>Re:UK Law is not unclear</title>
	<author>thejynxed</author>
	<datestamp>1247843700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously, you haven't been paying any attention to anything posted above you.</p><p>NPG isn't right as far as -US- law is concerned. They ARE right as far as -UK- law is concerned.</p><p>Photographs of Public Domain works are not copyrightable under US law. This is a special exception to the general rule concerning copyright and photographs, and only applies to works in the Public Domain. In the specific case of Public Domain works, photographic reproduction of the works is treated as a mechanical process, and not a creative process (the way photographs are normally treated under US law).</p><p>There is no exception yet for photographic reproductions of Public Domain works under UK law, which is what this entire dispute is about: The conflict between the two laws, as it applies between NPG (UK) and Wikipedia (US).</p><p>As I stated in another post, the most fair and equitable solution for all sides is for Wikipedia to remove the high-res versions and replace them with the still high-quality but lower-res versions offered to them for 'Fair Use' by NPG.</p><p>Everybody wins, no courts or ambulance-chasers need to be involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously , you have n't been paying any attention to anything posted above you.NPG is n't right as far as -US- law is concerned .
They ARE right as far as -UK- law is concerned.Photographs of Public Domain works are not copyrightable under US law .
This is a special exception to the general rule concerning copyright and photographs , and only applies to works in the Public Domain .
In the specific case of Public Domain works , photographic reproduction of the works is treated as a mechanical process , and not a creative process ( the way photographs are normally treated under US law ) .There is no exception yet for photographic reproductions of Public Domain works under UK law , which is what this entire dispute is about : The conflict between the two laws , as it applies between NPG ( UK ) and Wikipedia ( US ) .As I stated in another post , the most fair and equitable solution for all sides is for Wikipedia to remove the high-res versions and replace them with the still high-quality but lower-res versions offered to them for 'Fair Use ' by NPG.Everybody wins , no courts or ambulance-chasers need to be involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously, you haven't been paying any attention to anything posted above you.NPG isn't right as far as -US- law is concerned.
They ARE right as far as -UK- law is concerned.Photographs of Public Domain works are not copyrightable under US law.
This is a special exception to the general rule concerning copyright and photographs, and only applies to works in the Public Domain.
In the specific case of Public Domain works, photographic reproduction of the works is treated as a mechanical process, and not a creative process (the way photographs are normally treated under US law).There is no exception yet for photographic reproductions of Public Domain works under UK law, which is what this entire dispute is about: The conflict between the two laws, as it applies between NPG (UK) and Wikipedia (US).As I stated in another post, the most fair and equitable solution for all sides is for Wikipedia to remove the high-res versions and replace them with the still high-quality but lower-res versions offered to them for 'Fair Use' by NPG.Everybody wins, no courts or ambulance-chasers need to be involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728507</id>
	<title>Difficult Case</title>
	<author>squoozer</author>
	<datestamp>1247839740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm seriously torn here about whether I support the museum or the little guy. I don't think anyone would argue that the original pictures are in the public domain but that isn't what is being shown on Wikipedia, what is getting shown there is a photograph of a public domain work. I think it's fair to argue that a non-trivial amount of work went into taking these photographs and therefore they fall under copyright legislation. If you think it was a trivial amount of work ask yourself how long it took a professional photographer to capture all these shots - I'll bet it ran to at least several weeks of work and probably more (at 20 paintings a day it would be 30 weeks work and I doubt they could do twenty a day).</p><p>On the other hand this museum is paid for by the people and presumably the payment to have the photographs taken was also public money. I would say, therefore, that there is a strong argument that these photographs should be in the public domain (at least for residents of the UK). Strengthening the freedom argument, to my mind, is the fact that the museum doesn't allow people to take their own photographs in effect causing a monopoly situation on public works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm seriously torn here about whether I support the museum or the little guy .
I do n't think anyone would argue that the original pictures are in the public domain but that is n't what is being shown on Wikipedia , what is getting shown there is a photograph of a public domain work .
I think it 's fair to argue that a non-trivial amount of work went into taking these photographs and therefore they fall under copyright legislation .
If you think it was a trivial amount of work ask yourself how long it took a professional photographer to capture all these shots - I 'll bet it ran to at least several weeks of work and probably more ( at 20 paintings a day it would be 30 weeks work and I doubt they could do twenty a day ) .On the other hand this museum is paid for by the people and presumably the payment to have the photographs taken was also public money .
I would say , therefore , that there is a strong argument that these photographs should be in the public domain ( at least for residents of the UK ) .
Strengthening the freedom argument , to my mind , is the fact that the museum does n't allow people to take their own photographs in effect causing a monopoly situation on public works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm seriously torn here about whether I support the museum or the little guy.
I don't think anyone would argue that the original pictures are in the public domain but that isn't what is being shown on Wikipedia, what is getting shown there is a photograph of a public domain work.
I think it's fair to argue that a non-trivial amount of work went into taking these photographs and therefore they fall under copyright legislation.
If you think it was a trivial amount of work ask yourself how long it took a professional photographer to capture all these shots - I'll bet it ran to at least several weeks of work and probably more (at 20 paintings a day it would be 30 weeks work and I doubt they could do twenty a day).On the other hand this museum is paid for by the people and presumably the payment to have the photographs taken was also public money.
I would say, therefore, that there is a strong argument that these photographs should be in the public domain (at least for residents of the UK).
Strengthening the freedom argument, to my mind, is the fact that the museum doesn't allow people to take their own photographs in effect causing a monopoly situation on public works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28727991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28734369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28727991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28731029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28731639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28727991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28751659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28731581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28727991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28733685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28739817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28727991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28737403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28732633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28734729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28732581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28727991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28727991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28733695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28737283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28731083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28733285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28727991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28735009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28727991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28733749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28736643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28733039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28735431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28737271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28727991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28731603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28732013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28727991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_085244_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28735089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_085244.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28733695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28737271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28733749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_085244.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28727991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728039
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728091
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28733285
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28731581
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729187
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28735175
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28732013
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28739817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728113
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28734369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728097
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28731639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_085244.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728435
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729091
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729969
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730045
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729719
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728919
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730509
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28731029
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_085244.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728127
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_085244.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728261
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728697
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28735431
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28734729
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728639
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729391
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28737403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728267
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_085244.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730153
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_085244.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28735089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28733685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28732633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28751659
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_085244.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729165
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_085244.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28735009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28736643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_085244.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729403
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_085244.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28733039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28732581
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28731603
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28731083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28730297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28729267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28737283
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_085244.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_085244.28728389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
