<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_11_1239244</id>
	<title>UK's National Portrait Gallery Threatens To Sue Wikipedia User</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1247322060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://openflights.org/" rel="nofollow">jpatokal</a> writes <i>"The National Portrait Gallery of London is <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dcoetzee/NPG\_legal\_threat">threatening litigation against a Wikipedia user</a> over his uploading of pictures of <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:National\_Portrait\_Gallery,\_London">some 3,000 paintings</a>, all 19th century or earlier and firmly in the public domain. Their claim? The photos are a 'product of a painstaking exercise on the part of the photographer,' and that downloading them off the NPG site is an 'unlawful circumvention of technical measures.'  And remember, the NPG's <a href="http://www.npg.org.uk/about/organisation.php">taxpayer-funded mission</a> is to 'promote the appreciation and understanding of portraiture in all media [...] to as wide a range of visitors as possible!'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jpatokal writes " The National Portrait Gallery of London is threatening litigation against a Wikipedia user over his uploading of pictures of some 3,000 paintings , all 19th century or earlier and firmly in the public domain .
Their claim ?
The photos are a 'product of a painstaking exercise on the part of the photographer, ' and that downloading them off the NPG site is an 'unlawful circumvention of technical measures .
' And remember , the NPG 's taxpayer-funded mission is to 'promote the appreciation and understanding of portraiture in all media [ ... ] to as wide a range of visitors as possible !
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jpatokal writes "The National Portrait Gallery of London is threatening litigation against a Wikipedia user over his uploading of pictures of some 3,000 paintings, all 19th century or earlier and firmly in the public domain.
Their claim?
The photos are a 'product of a painstaking exercise on the part of the photographer,' and that downloading them off the NPG site is an 'unlawful circumvention of technical measures.
'  And remember, the NPG's taxpayer-funded mission is to 'promote the appreciation and understanding of portraiture in all media [...] to as wide a range of visitors as possible!
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661097</id>
	<title>Re:The law is on London's side</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247334420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nope - the uploader is in the US, the servers are in the US, the WMF is in the US. This was unambiguously legal in the US under well-established copyright law.</p><p>They're making threats because they think they can bully him anyway.</p></div><p>Yep - even the servers where the images were pulled from was in the US.</p><p>No, wait...</p><p>'Bullying' him? Hardly...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope - the uploader is in the US , the servers are in the US , the WMF is in the US .
This was unambiguously legal in the US under well-established copyright law.They 're making threats because they think they can bully him anyway.Yep - even the servers where the images were pulled from was in the US.No , wait...'Bullying ' him ?
Hardly.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope - the uploader is in the US, the servers are in the US, the WMF is in the US.
This was unambiguously legal in the US under well-established copyright law.They're making threats because they think they can bully him anyway.Yep - even the servers where the images were pulled from was in the US.No, wait...'Bullying' him?
Hardly...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661383</id>
	<title>American Hypocrisy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247336400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did USA tax payers fund the taking of the photographs? - No.<br>Do USA tax payers fund the National Portrait Gallery? - No.<br>Does the USA own the pictures in the National Portrait Gallery? - Unknown, but probably not.<br><br>If copying the photographs would be legal in the States, THEN COPY YOUR OWN FINE ART. I would be quite happy for the NPG to remove all their images and basically have people go in person to the gallery to view them. That would stop you American freeloaders<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)<br><br>Oh and while I'm here - stop downloading all that BBC content that you feel you are entitled to, because it's "public service broadcasting". When was the last time you paid for a TV license? Just because your own TV is rubbish, that's no justification for stealing ours.<br><br>I've helped pay for it. You haven't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did USA tax payers fund the taking of the photographs ?
- No.Do USA tax payers fund the National Portrait Gallery ?
- No.Does the USA own the pictures in the National Portrait Gallery ?
- Unknown , but probably not.If copying the photographs would be legal in the States , THEN COPY YOUR OWN FINE ART .
I would be quite happy for the NPG to remove all their images and basically have people go in person to the gallery to view them .
That would stop you American freeloaders : - ) Oh and while I 'm here - stop downloading all that BBC content that you feel you are entitled to , because it 's " public service broadcasting " .
When was the last time you paid for a TV license ?
Just because your own TV is rubbish , that 's no justification for stealing ours.I 've helped pay for it .
You have n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did USA tax payers fund the taking of the photographs?
- No.Do USA tax payers fund the National Portrait Gallery?
- No.Does the USA own the pictures in the National Portrait Gallery?
- Unknown, but probably not.If copying the photographs would be legal in the States, THEN COPY YOUR OWN FINE ART.
I would be quite happy for the NPG to remove all their images and basically have people go in person to the gallery to view them.
That would stop you American freeloaders :-)Oh and while I'm here - stop downloading all that BBC content that you feel you are entitled to, because it's "public service broadcasting".
When was the last time you paid for a TV license?
Just because your own TV is rubbish, that's no justification for stealing ours.I've helped pay for it.
You haven't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661137</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>meringuoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247334600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Well done for completely glossing over that the images themselves are British, located in Britain.</i>

<p>The originals are in Britain. But the copies that the gallery claim are unlawful are located on a server in America, where they are in the public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well done for completely glossing over that the images themselves are British , located in Britain .
The originals are in Britain .
But the copies that the gallery claim are unlawful are located on a server in America , where they are in the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well done for completely glossing over that the images themselves are British, located in Britain.
The originals are in Britain.
But the copies that the gallery claim are unlawful are located on a server in America, where they are in the public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660273</id>
	<title>Re:I use an IR camera as well as VIS</title>
	<author>The\_mad\_linguist</author>
	<datestamp>1247329260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They already banned photography.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They already banned photography .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already banned photography.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660979</id>
	<title>with their client's needs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247333640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean the taxpayers?</p><p>What, no one thinks of the children in this case?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean the taxpayers ? What , no one thinks of the children in this case ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean the taxpayers?What, no one thinks of the children in this case?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660527</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a sec- he took the photos or someone else?</title>
	<author>gabebear</author>
	<datestamp>1247330820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The works are fully attributed, although they don't need to be since they are public domain.
<br>
<a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sir\_Edward\_Belcher\_by\_Stephen\_Pearce.jpg" title="wikimedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sir\_Edward\_Belcher\_by\_Stephen\_Pearce.jpg</a> [wikimedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The works are fully attributed , although they do n't need to be since they are public domain .
http : //commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File : Sir \ _Edward \ _Belcher \ _by \ _Stephen \ _Pearce.jpg [ wikimedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The works are fully attributed, although they don't need to be since they are public domain.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sir\_Edward\_Belcher\_by\_Stephen\_Pearce.jpg [wikimedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659941</id>
	<title>Re:The law is on London's side</title>
	<author>yincrash</author>
	<datestamp>1247326860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe this is true of the US as well, but IANAL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe this is true of the US as well , but IANAL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe this is true of the US as well, but IANAL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28666737</id>
	<title>What kind of low-resolution?</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1247404860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>they've offered to work out terms for lower resolution imagery to be made available to Wikipedia</p></div><p>
What kind of low-resolution? 128x128px?
</p><p>
And what kind of "made available"? Projects run by Wikimedia Foundation doesn't use images that are made available only to WMF and not to downstream reusers.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they 've offered to work out terms for lower resolution imagery to be made available to Wikipedia What kind of low-resolution ?
128x128px ? And what kind of " made available " ?
Projects run by Wikimedia Foundation does n't use images that are made available only to WMF and not to downstream reusers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they've offered to work out terms for lower resolution imagery to be made available to Wikipedia
What kind of low-resolution?
128x128px?

And what kind of "made available"?
Projects run by Wikimedia Foundation doesn't use images that are made available only to WMF and not to downstream reusers.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660199</id>
	<title>"the NPG's taxpayer-funded mission"</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1247328840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NPG's <i>UK taxpayer</i>-funded mission.</p><p>So they're working under UK law.  It kinda sucks that our copyright laws and, in some ways, less friendly than the US.  Even stuff the government itself produces is not public domain over here.  But that's the law here, that's how it works.</p><p>Making a high resolution reproduction of a work of art requires special equipment and skills, so I really think it's fair enough if that's copyright - somebody has invested money, skills and effort in making the reproduction be as good as possible.  The situation is different in the US but the NPG ain't in the US.  If the UK taxpayer funded it and UK law says that it's copyrightable, you can understand the NPG feeling the need to protect the UK taxpayer's investment by maintaining control of the images.</p><p>Given they control their own reproductions of the pictures, would it be acceptable for them to deny visitors the right to take their own photographs?  I think not.  But that's a <i>separate debate</i> because this guy didn't go there and invest the time to make photographs that he would then have had copyright on under UK law, he downloaded them from the National Gallery's website.  I agree with the many posters before me that whilst it somewhat sucks that these creative works aren't available digitally in the public domain, the NPG are really being pretty reasonable about this - they've offered to work out terms for lower resolution imagery to be made available to Wikipedia, which is <i>a lot</i> more constructive than you'd expect from a corporate entity.  It really looks like they're trying to defend their legal position sensibly whilst still facilitating the transfer of information - good for them.</p><p>But, please, Wikipedia users and everyone else - feel free to increase pressure on our government and institutions (and those in other countries) to have a strong public domain and sensible, fair copyright laws.  We still have further to go, it's just a question of how we choose to represent ourselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NPG 's UK taxpayer-funded mission.So they 're working under UK law .
It kinda sucks that our copyright laws and , in some ways , less friendly than the US .
Even stuff the government itself produces is not public domain over here .
But that 's the law here , that 's how it works.Making a high resolution reproduction of a work of art requires special equipment and skills , so I really think it 's fair enough if that 's copyright - somebody has invested money , skills and effort in making the reproduction be as good as possible .
The situation is different in the US but the NPG ai n't in the US .
If the UK taxpayer funded it and UK law says that it 's copyrightable , you can understand the NPG feeling the need to protect the UK taxpayer 's investment by maintaining control of the images.Given they control their own reproductions of the pictures , would it be acceptable for them to deny visitors the right to take their own photographs ?
I think not .
But that 's a separate debate because this guy did n't go there and invest the time to make photographs that he would then have had copyright on under UK law , he downloaded them from the National Gallery 's website .
I agree with the many posters before me that whilst it somewhat sucks that these creative works are n't available digitally in the public domain , the NPG are really being pretty reasonable about this - they 've offered to work out terms for lower resolution imagery to be made available to Wikipedia , which is a lot more constructive than you 'd expect from a corporate entity .
It really looks like they 're trying to defend their legal position sensibly whilst still facilitating the transfer of information - good for them.But , please , Wikipedia users and everyone else - feel free to increase pressure on our government and institutions ( and those in other countries ) to have a strong public domain and sensible , fair copyright laws .
We still have further to go , it 's just a question of how we choose to represent ourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NPG's UK taxpayer-funded mission.So they're working under UK law.
It kinda sucks that our copyright laws and, in some ways, less friendly than the US.
Even stuff the government itself produces is not public domain over here.
But that's the law here, that's how it works.Making a high resolution reproduction of a work of art requires special equipment and skills, so I really think it's fair enough if that's copyright - somebody has invested money, skills and effort in making the reproduction be as good as possible.
The situation is different in the US but the NPG ain't in the US.
If the UK taxpayer funded it and UK law says that it's copyrightable, you can understand the NPG feeling the need to protect the UK taxpayer's investment by maintaining control of the images.Given they control their own reproductions of the pictures, would it be acceptable for them to deny visitors the right to take their own photographs?
I think not.
But that's a separate debate because this guy didn't go there and invest the time to make photographs that he would then have had copyright on under UK law, he downloaded them from the National Gallery's website.
I agree with the many posters before me that whilst it somewhat sucks that these creative works aren't available digitally in the public domain, the NPG are really being pretty reasonable about this - they've offered to work out terms for lower resolution imagery to be made available to Wikipedia, which is a lot more constructive than you'd expect from a corporate entity.
It really looks like they're trying to defend their legal position sensibly whilst still facilitating the transfer of information - good for them.But, please, Wikipedia users and everyone else - feel free to increase pressure on our government and institutions (and those in other countries) to have a strong public domain and sensible, fair copyright laws.
We still have further to go, it's just a question of how we choose to represent ourselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664067</id>
	<title>Re:NPG web site makes it clear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247313960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) The law is flawed: The act of photographing a painting with the best quality of reproduction of the original is a technical exercise, not a creative act. It's not essentially different from an experienced photocopier operator making a photocopy.</p></div><p>You may consider the law unjust -- it may even be unjust -- but it's very firmly held in UK law that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat\_of\_the\_brow#UK\_copyright\_law" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">sweat of the brow</a> [wikipedia.org] <i>does</i> confer copyright. The law isn't going to change just for one person's sake.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) The law is flawed : The act of photographing a painting with the best quality of reproduction of the original is a technical exercise , not a creative act .
It 's not essentially different from an experienced photocopier operator making a photocopy.You may consider the law unjust -- it may even be unjust -- but it 's very firmly held in UK law that sweat of the brow [ wikipedia.org ] does confer copyright .
The law is n't going to change just for one person 's sake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) The law is flawed: The act of photographing a painting with the best quality of reproduction of the original is a technical exercise, not a creative act.
It's not essentially different from an experienced photocopier operator making a photocopy.You may consider the law unjust -- it may even be unjust -- but it's very firmly held in UK law that sweat of the brow [wikipedia.org] does confer copyright.
The law isn't going to change just for one person's sake.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28678203</id>
	<title>Nonsense.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1247506260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright protects the creation of original content.</p><p>How trying to reproduce something exactly is creative?</p><p>The NPG should have in their budget the photography of the paintings without any expectation of holding copyright of the photographs themselves.</p><p>They can publish the photographs in as many formats as they wish (books, post cards, calendars, whatever). Those works would certainly be protected by copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright protects the creation of original content.How trying to reproduce something exactly is creative ? The NPG should have in their budget the photography of the paintings without any expectation of holding copyright of the photographs themselves.They can publish the photographs in as many formats as they wish ( books , post cards , calendars , whatever ) .
Those works would certainly be protected by copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright protects the creation of original content.How trying to reproduce something exactly is creative?The NPG should have in their budget the photography of the paintings without any expectation of holding copyright of the photographs themselves.They can publish the photographs in as many formats as they wish (books, post cards, calendars, whatever).
Those works would certainly be protected by copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28665717</id>
	<title>Re:These plaintiffs are being very reasonable</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1247339940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ithey ask for (almost entirely) reasonable steps to avoid the lawsuit</p></div><p>They may not realize it, but the steps they ask for are impossible.  Even if Dcoetzee wanted to, he couldn't "permanently delete" images, even if he's uploaded them.  He was a sysop at the time of the request, but a) sysops can't permanently delete anything, only hide it from the public; and b) policy would prevent him from deleting the images.  If he tried, he'd just be desysopped and they'd be restored by another sysop.

</p><p>Now he's <a href="http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&amp;type=rights&amp;user=&amp;page=+User:Dcoetzee@commonswiki+&amp;year=&amp;month=-1&amp;tagfilter=" title="wikimedia.org">no longer even an administrator</a> [wikimedia.org].  He was temporarily demoted while the implications of this threat play out.  It's even more obviously impossible for him to comply with their demands now.

</p><p>The fact of the matter is that the only ones who could delete the images are either the Wikimedia Foundation, or the Commons community by discussion and vote.  No individual user has the power to remove images en masse like this just because they personally want to.  This is not Flickr, where users have any control whatsoever over the content they upload.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If I ever get sued, I want to be sued by these people. They're working with the law and with their client's needs, and not violating the public's needs for information.</p></div><p>Only because they know their case is incredibly weak.  If he lived in the UK, you can bet they'd be coming down on him with a sledgehammer.  I'm going to guess they were desperately hoping he'd get scared and go along with their demands (not that he even could, as noted; but they probably didn't realize that).  When he says he won't, I'm going to bet they drop it, because they can't do squat.  (But IANAL.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ithey ask for ( almost entirely ) reasonable steps to avoid the lawsuitThey may not realize it , but the steps they ask for are impossible .
Even if Dcoetzee wanted to , he could n't " permanently delete " images , even if he 's uploaded them .
He was a sysop at the time of the request , but a ) sysops ca n't permanently delete anything , only hide it from the public ; and b ) policy would prevent him from deleting the images .
If he tried , he 'd just be desysopped and they 'd be restored by another sysop .
Now he 's no longer even an administrator [ wikimedia.org ] .
He was temporarily demoted while the implications of this threat play out .
It 's even more obviously impossible for him to comply with their demands now .
The fact of the matter is that the only ones who could delete the images are either the Wikimedia Foundation , or the Commons community by discussion and vote .
No individual user has the power to remove images en masse like this just because they personally want to .
This is not Flickr , where users have any control whatsoever over the content they upload.If I ever get sued , I want to be sued by these people .
They 're working with the law and with their client 's needs , and not violating the public 's needs for information.Only because they know their case is incredibly weak .
If he lived in the UK , you can bet they 'd be coming down on him with a sledgehammer .
I 'm going to guess they were desperately hoping he 'd get scared and go along with their demands ( not that he even could , as noted ; but they probably did n't realize that ) .
When he says he wo n't , I 'm going to bet they drop it , because they ca n't do squat .
( But IANAL .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ithey ask for (almost entirely) reasonable steps to avoid the lawsuitThey may not realize it, but the steps they ask for are impossible.
Even if Dcoetzee wanted to, he couldn't "permanently delete" images, even if he's uploaded them.
He was a sysop at the time of the request, but a) sysops can't permanently delete anything, only hide it from the public; and b) policy would prevent him from deleting the images.
If he tried, he'd just be desysopped and they'd be restored by another sysop.
Now he's no longer even an administrator [wikimedia.org].
He was temporarily demoted while the implications of this threat play out.
It's even more obviously impossible for him to comply with their demands now.
The fact of the matter is that the only ones who could delete the images are either the Wikimedia Foundation, or the Commons community by discussion and vote.
No individual user has the power to remove images en masse like this just because they personally want to.
This is not Flickr, where users have any control whatsoever over the content they upload.If I ever get sued, I want to be sued by these people.
They're working with the law and with their client's needs, and not violating the public's needs for information.Only because they know their case is incredibly weak.
If he lived in the UK, you can bet they'd be coming down on him with a sledgehammer.
I'm going to guess they were desperately hoping he'd get scared and go along with their demands (not that he even could, as noted; but they probably didn't realize that).
When he says he won't, I'm going to bet they drop it, because they can't do squat.
(But IANAL.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660175</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a sec- he took the photos or someone else?</title>
	<author>CheshireCatCO</author>
	<datestamp>1247328660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did they edit the blurb?  It now reads, " and that downloading them off the NPG site is an 'unlawful circumvention of technical measures.'"  That seems pretty clear to me.  (But maybe that's because when I was in the NPG 4 years ago, I'm pretty sure that they didn't allow photography.  I certain didn't take any pictures, I would have I'm sure.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they edit the blurb ?
It now reads , " and that downloading them off the NPG site is an 'unlawful circumvention of technical measures .
' " That seems pretty clear to me .
( But maybe that 's because when I was in the NPG 4 years ago , I 'm pretty sure that they did n't allow photography .
I certain did n't take any pictures , I would have I 'm sure .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they edit the blurb?
It now reads, " and that downloading them off the NPG site is an 'unlawful circumvention of technical measures.
'"  That seems pretty clear to me.
(But maybe that's because when I was in the NPG 4 years ago, I'm pretty sure that they didn't allow photography.
I certain didn't take any pictures, I would have I'm sure.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660501</id>
	<title>Re:I use an IR camera as well as VIS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247330580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By "real world" do you mean a world that isn't the one in which we actually live?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By " real world " do you mean a world that is n't the one in which we actually live ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By "real world" do you mean a world that isn't the one in which we actually live?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661107</id>
	<title>Re:Result:</title>
	<author>dingen</author>
	<datestamp>1247334480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, they won't cave. Wikipedia has added the following statement:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain".<br>
<b>This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain.</b></p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they wo n't cave .
Wikipedia has added the following statement : The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that " faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain , and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain " .
This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they won't cave.
Wikipedia has added the following statement:The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain".
This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28662843</id>
	<title>Re:I use an IR camera as well as VIS</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1247304120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google turned up this image:</p><p><a href="http://people.rit.edu/andpph/photofile-b/ir-vulcan-comparison-1.jpg" title="rit.edu">http://people.rit.edu/andpph/photofile-b/ir-vulcan-comparison-1.jpg</a> [rit.edu]</p><p>Note the arm was moved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google turned up this image : http : //people.rit.edu/andpph/photofile-b/ir-vulcan-comparison-1.jpg [ rit.edu ] Note the arm was moved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google turned up this image:http://people.rit.edu/andpph/photofile-b/ir-vulcan-comparison-1.jpg [rit.edu]Note the arm was moved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28663179</id>
	<title>Re:He could have....</title>
	<author>jvkjvk</author>
	<datestamp>1247306820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it quite ironic that making the images available to the public elsewhere is seen as 'harming' a public institution.</p><p>If it has merit for NPG to host them, surely the *public* is better served if there are multiple copies?</p><p>Regards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it quite ironic that making the images available to the public elsewhere is seen as 'harming ' a public institution.If it has merit for NPG to host them , surely the * public * is better served if there are multiple copies ? Regards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it quite ironic that making the images available to the public elsewhere is seen as 'harming' a public institution.If it has merit for NPG to host them, surely the *public* is better served if there are multiple copies?Regards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660929</id>
	<title>Re:Heart of the global nature of the internet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247333340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot should really look more into this problem. What if a country allowed copying programs, books, music and films? There are a lot here saying this NPG case isn't a problem, because it's legal to do in USA. Well, what if you made a program which you sell, and then another country allowed for it to be copied for free? Would you say that's not a problem, since it legal in that country, or would you screem and call that country whatever you would find appropriate?</p><p>You don't think it's a problem, because you gain on this NPG case. What do you say when you try to enforce the rights you think you have? Will you be equally open then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot should really look more into this problem .
What if a country allowed copying programs , books , music and films ?
There are a lot here saying this NPG case is n't a problem , because it 's legal to do in USA .
Well , what if you made a program which you sell , and then another country allowed for it to be copied for free ?
Would you say that 's not a problem , since it legal in that country , or would you screem and call that country whatever you would find appropriate ? You do n't think it 's a problem , because you gain on this NPG case .
What do you say when you try to enforce the rights you think you have ?
Will you be equally open then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot should really look more into this problem.
What if a country allowed copying programs, books, music and films?
There are a lot here saying this NPG case isn't a problem, because it's legal to do in USA.
Well, what if you made a program which you sell, and then another country allowed for it to be copied for free?
Would you say that's not a problem, since it legal in that country, or would you screem and call that country whatever you would find appropriate?You don't think it's a problem, because you gain on this NPG case.
What do you say when you try to enforce the rights you think you have?
Will you be equally open then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28663081</id>
	<title>An Open Letter to All Donors...</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1247305980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html" title="pdfernhout.net">http://www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html</a> [pdfernhout.net]<br>"""<br>Executive summary: Foundations, other grantmaking agencies handling public tax-exempt dollars, and charitable donors need to consider the implications for their grantmaking or donation policies if they use a now obsolete charitable model of subsidizing proprietary publishing and proprietary research. In order to improve the effectiveness and collaborativeness of the non-profit sector overall, it is suggested these grantmaking organizations and donors move to requiring grantees to make any resulting copyrighted digital materials freely available on the internet, including free licenses granting the right for others to make and redistribute new derivative works without further permission. It is also suggested patents resulting from charitably subsidized research research also be made freely available for general use. The alternative of allowing charitable dollars to result in proprietary copyrights and proprietary patents is corrupting the non-profit sector as it results in a conflict of interest between a non-profit's primary mission of helping humanity through freely sharing knowledge (made possible at little cost by the internet) and a desire to maximize short term revenues through charging licensing fees for access to patents and copyrights. In essence, with the change of publishing and communication economics made possible by the wide spread use of the internet, tax-exempt non-profits have become, perhaps unwittingly, caught up in a new form of "self-dealing", and it is up to donors and grantmakers (and eventually lawmakers) to prevent this by requiring free licensing of results as a condition of their grants and donations.<br>"""</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From :     http : //www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html [ pdfernhout.net ] " " " Executive summary : Foundations , other grantmaking agencies handling public tax-exempt dollars , and charitable donors need to consider the implications for their grantmaking or donation policies if they use a now obsolete charitable model of subsidizing proprietary publishing and proprietary research .
In order to improve the effectiveness and collaborativeness of the non-profit sector overall , it is suggested these grantmaking organizations and donors move to requiring grantees to make any resulting copyrighted digital materials freely available on the internet , including free licenses granting the right for others to make and redistribute new derivative works without further permission .
It is also suggested patents resulting from charitably subsidized research research also be made freely available for general use .
The alternative of allowing charitable dollars to result in proprietary copyrights and proprietary patents is corrupting the non-profit sector as it results in a conflict of interest between a non-profit 's primary mission of helping humanity through freely sharing knowledge ( made possible at little cost by the internet ) and a desire to maximize short term revenues through charging licensing fees for access to patents and copyrights .
In essence , with the change of publishing and communication economics made possible by the wide spread use of the internet , tax-exempt non-profits have become , perhaps unwittingly , caught up in a new form of " self-dealing " , and it is up to donors and grantmakers ( and eventually lawmakers ) to prevent this by requiring free licensing of results as a condition of their grants and donations .
" " "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From:
    http://www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html [pdfernhout.net]"""Executive summary: Foundations, other grantmaking agencies handling public tax-exempt dollars, and charitable donors need to consider the implications for their grantmaking or donation policies if they use a now obsolete charitable model of subsidizing proprietary publishing and proprietary research.
In order to improve the effectiveness and collaborativeness of the non-profit sector overall, it is suggested these grantmaking organizations and donors move to requiring grantees to make any resulting copyrighted digital materials freely available on the internet, including free licenses granting the right for others to make and redistribute new derivative works without further permission.
It is also suggested patents resulting from charitably subsidized research research also be made freely available for general use.
The alternative of allowing charitable dollars to result in proprietary copyrights and proprietary patents is corrupting the non-profit sector as it results in a conflict of interest between a non-profit's primary mission of helping humanity through freely sharing knowledge (made possible at little cost by the internet) and a desire to maximize short term revenues through charging licensing fees for access to patents and copyrights.
In essence, with the change of publishing and communication economics made possible by the wide spread use of the internet, tax-exempt non-profits have become, perhaps unwittingly, caught up in a new form of "self-dealing", and it is up to donors and grantmakers (and eventually lawmakers) to prevent this by requiring free licensing of results as a condition of their grants and donations.
"""</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28667629</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247417040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's not copyrightable in the USA then how is the DMCA appropriate? Note the C in DMCA...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's not copyrightable in the USA then how is the DMCA appropriate ?
Note the C in DMCA.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's not copyrightable in the USA then how is the DMCA appropriate?
Note the C in DMCA...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664713</id>
	<title>Re:Heart of the global nature of the internet</title>
	<author>ianturton</author>
	<datestamp>1247322180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And yet the US is trying to extract a UK citizen to stand trial for hacking US sites while he was in the UK. You can't have it both ways.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet the US is trying to extract a UK citizen to stand trial for hacking US sites while he was in the UK .
You ca n't have it both ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet the US is trying to extract a UK citizen to stand trial for hacking US sites while he was in the UK.
You can't have it both ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28668345</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>moortak</author>
	<datestamp>1247423820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>  "In sections 296ZA to 296ZE, "technological measures" are any technology, device or component which is designed, in the normal course of its operation, to protect a copyright work other than a computer program."

Under US law the images are not under copyright.  The DMCA would not apply</htmltext>
<tokenext>" In sections 296ZA to 296ZE , " technological measures " are any technology , device or component which is designed , in the normal course of its operation , to protect a copyright work other than a computer program .
" Under US law the images are not under copyright .
The DMCA would not apply</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  "In sections 296ZA to 296ZE, "technological measures" are any technology, device or component which is designed, in the normal course of its operation, to protect a copyright work other than a computer program.
"

Under US law the images are not under copyright.
The DMCA would not apply</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28672783</id>
	<title>Re:The law is on London's side</title>
	<author>Savantissimo</author>
	<datestamp>1247422620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the NG's servers give those images to anybody who asks, knowing that they'll ordinarily be cached on the disks of all those website visitors. The NGs servers didn't do anything more for this guy than they do for any other visitor. All the differences which could be alleged to be infringing occurred outside the UK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the NG 's servers give those images to anybody who asks , knowing that they 'll ordinarily be cached on the disks of all those website visitors .
The NGs servers did n't do anything more for this guy than they do for any other visitor .
All the differences which could be alleged to be infringing occurred outside the UK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the NG's servers give those images to anybody who asks, knowing that they'll ordinarily be cached on the disks of all those website visitors.
The NGs servers didn't do anything more for this guy than they do for any other visitor.
All the differences which could be alleged to be infringing occurred outside the UK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661621</id>
	<title>Double Standards</title>
	<author>metrix007</author>
	<datestamp>1247338260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So. The US is happy to go after nay country that has a different version of copyright law to that of the US, such as Canada, even putting them on a watchlist. They want everybody to respect US law, without being willing to do the same for other countries? Honestly, as stupid as the law is, it should be respected until it is lobbied to be changed. Besides, wiki is an international foundation, sureley something can be done to the local UK branch? I actually hope the UK would grow some balls, and extradite the user to the UK for trial....</p><p>Oh that's right, they can't<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:|</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So .
The US is happy to go after nay country that has a different version of copyright law to that of the US , such as Canada , even putting them on a watchlist .
They want everybody to respect US law , without being willing to do the same for other countries ?
Honestly , as stupid as the law is , it should be respected until it is lobbied to be changed .
Besides , wiki is an international foundation , sureley something can be done to the local UK branch ?
I actually hope the UK would grow some balls , and extradite the user to the UK for trial....Oh that 's right , they ca n't : |</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So.
The US is happy to go after nay country that has a different version of copyright law to that of the US, such as Canada, even putting them on a watchlist.
They want everybody to respect US law, without being willing to do the same for other countries?
Honestly, as stupid as the law is, it should be respected until it is lobbied to be changed.
Besides, wiki is an international foundation, sureley something can be done to the local UK branch?
I actually hope the UK would grow some balls, and extradite the user to the UK for trial....Oh that's right, they can't :|</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660271</id>
	<title>Heart of the global nature of the internet</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1247329260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This issue strikes at the heart of the international nature of the internet.
<p>1.  In the UK, it would be a crime.
</p><p>2.  In the USA it is not a crime.
</p><p>3.  The act was done in the USA.
</p><p>QED no crime was committed.   The problem is that by inference we need a single global law for all electronically copyable information.  That includes all photos, art, music, movies, books, etc.
</p><p>The thing that makes the problem difficult is A. There is no global organization with anything close to the authority or trust to create such a global law and B. There are SIGNIFICANT philosophical differences about the kinds of laws we need.  Whether it is is Freedom of the Press issue, a slander issue, or even business model issues (I personally think a 10 year renewable with sequel, copyright system would work best) there is HUGE disagreement still on what is fair and workable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This issue strikes at the heart of the international nature of the internet .
1. In the UK , it would be a crime .
2. In the USA it is not a crime .
3. The act was done in the USA .
QED no crime was committed .
The problem is that by inference we need a single global law for all electronically copyable information .
That includes all photos , art , music , movies , books , etc .
The thing that makes the problem difficult is A. There is no global organization with anything close to the authority or trust to create such a global law and B. There are SIGNIFICANT philosophical differences about the kinds of laws we need .
Whether it is is Freedom of the Press issue , a slander issue , or even business model issues ( I personally think a 10 year renewable with sequel , copyright system would work best ) there is HUGE disagreement still on what is fair and workable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This issue strikes at the heart of the international nature of the internet.
1.  In the UK, it would be a crime.
2.  In the USA it is not a crime.
3.  The act was done in the USA.
QED no crime was committed.
The problem is that by inference we need a single global law for all electronically copyable information.
That includes all photos, art, music, movies, books, etc.
The thing that makes the problem difficult is A. There is no global organization with anything close to the authority or trust to create such a global law and B. There are SIGNIFICANT philosophical differences about the kinds of laws we need.
Whether it is is Freedom of the Press issue, a slander issue, or even business model issues (I personally think a 10 year renewable with sequel, copyright system would work best) there is HUGE disagreement still on what is fair and workable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28686801</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247508120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In sections 296ZA to 296ZE, "technological measures" are any technology, device or component which is designed, in the normal course of its operation, to protect a copyright work other than a computer program."</p><p>"to protect a copyright work"</p><p>There is no copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In sections 296ZA to 296ZE , " technological measures " are any technology , device or component which is designed , in the normal course of its operation , to protect a copyright work other than a computer program .
" " to protect a copyright work " There is no copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In sections 296ZA to 296ZE, "technological measures" are any technology, device or component which is designed, in the normal course of its operation, to protect a copyright work other than a computer program.
""to protect a copyright work"There is no copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660571</id>
	<title>Re:He could have....</title>
	<author>Bralkein</author>
	<datestamp>1247331060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I absolutely agree. I think that people often forget that there's more to morality than simply following the letter of the law. In a way it doesn't really matter whether this guy's not broken his own US law or not, it just would have been decent to ask! Even though the improvement of Wikipedia is a worthy goal, it's hard to sympathise with someone when they don't even show a basic level of respect for others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I absolutely agree .
I think that people often forget that there 's more to morality than simply following the letter of the law .
In a way it does n't really matter whether this guy 's not broken his own US law or not , it just would have been decent to ask !
Even though the improvement of Wikipedia is a worthy goal , it 's hard to sympathise with someone when they do n't even show a basic level of respect for others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I absolutely agree.
I think that people often forget that there's more to morality than simply following the letter of the law.
In a way it doesn't really matter whether this guy's not broken his own US law or not, it just would have been decent to ask!
Even though the improvement of Wikipedia is a worthy goal, it's hard to sympathise with someone when they don't even show a basic level of respect for others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659791</id>
	<title>The law is on London's side</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1247325900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The paintings may be in the public domain, but the photographs are copyright to the photographer.</p><p>So good luck to the dipshit user who uploaded them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The paintings may be in the public domain , but the photographs are copyright to the photographer.So good luck to the dipshit user who uploaded them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The paintings may be in the public domain, but the photographs are copyright to the photographer.So good luck to the dipshit user who uploaded them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661413</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>oiron</author>
	<datestamp>1247336580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...on a work that's not copyrighted under US law?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...on a work that 's not copyrighted under US law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...on a work that's not copyrighted under US law?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664455</id>
	<title>Re:"the NPG's taxpayer-funded mission"</title>
	<author>Jafafa Hots</author>
	<datestamp>1247318040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have learned to use DVD copying tools for the best possible output of my copies. Setting bit rates, choosing codecs, adjusting the codec settings, then painstakingly converting the subtitles from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.sub to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.srt, which is a manual process... etc. etc. Do I get copyright now?</p><p>Seinfeld put a lot of work into making his cam copies of movies in that one episode... does he get copyright? OK, lets say the DVD in question, the movie in question was public domain... do I and he NOW deserve copyright?</p><p>It's fucking insane if we do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have learned to use DVD copying tools for the best possible output of my copies .
Setting bit rates , choosing codecs , adjusting the codec settings , then painstakingly converting the subtitles from .sub to .srt , which is a manual process... etc. etc .
Do I get copyright now ? Seinfeld put a lot of work into making his cam copies of movies in that one episode... does he get copyright ?
OK , lets say the DVD in question , the movie in question was public domain... do I and he NOW deserve copyright ? It 's fucking insane if we do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have learned to use DVD copying tools for the best possible output of my copies.
Setting bit rates, choosing codecs, adjusting the codec settings, then painstakingly converting the subtitles from .sub to .srt, which is a manual process... etc. etc.
Do I get copyright now?Seinfeld put a lot of work into making his cam copies of movies in that one episode... does he get copyright?
OK, lets say the DVD in question, the movie in question was public domain... do I and he NOW deserve copyright?It's fucking insane if we do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121</id>
	<title>Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247328360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For several years, the National Portrait Gallery has claimed copyright over public domain images in their possession. Wikimedia has ignored these claims, occasionally laughing. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman\_Art\_Library\_v.\_Corel\_Corp." title="wikipedia.org">Bridgeman v. Corel</a> [wikipedia.org]. Sweat of the brow is not creation in US law; go away.) Our official stance in this time has been "sue and be damned."

</p><p>So the National Portrait Gallery has tried. <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dcoetzee/NPG\_legal\_threat" title="wikimedia.org">Here's their letter</a> [wikimedia.org]. A lollipop for every misconception or unlikely or impossible demand. This was sent after (so they claim) the WMF ignored their latest missive. The editor they sent the threat to is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dcoetzee" title="wikipedia.org">an American</a> [wikipedia.org].

</p><p> <b>A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over uploading images that are public domain in the US to an American server &mdash; unambiguously, in established US law, not a copyright violation of any sort.</b> I wonder how the case will go.

</p><p>The letter is particularly odious in that it admits that his actions were completely within US law, but threatens to make his life a misery just because they think they can unless he (an individual) can actually make the WMF do something the NPG wants. This is actually worse than the RIAA.

</p><p>It's most unfortunate that the National Portrait Gallery considers this in any way sensible behaviour, considering how well we've been going with museum partnerships for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia\_Loves\_Art" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia Loves Art</a> [wikipedia.org] &mdash; the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria\_and\_Albert\_Museum" title="wikipedia.org">V&amp;A</a> [wikipedia.org] were fantastically helpful and lovely people, who realise that spreading their name and exhibits far and wide is much more likely to get them money and fame than claims of copyright over works hundreds of years old.

</p><p>I can't see this ending well for the National Portrait Gallery, whatever happens. Anyone who could speak on their behalf at this level won't be in until Monday; I wonder if they'll be surprised at the people politely queueing with pitchforks and torches.</p><p>I'll be <a href="http://www.npg.org.uk/about/contactus.php" title="npg.org.uk">calling them</a> [npg.org.uk] first thing Monday (in my capacity as "just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics") to establish just what they think they're doing here. Other bloggers and, if interested, journalists may wish to do the same, to establish what their consistent response is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For several years , the National Portrait Gallery has claimed copyright over public domain images in their possession .
Wikimedia has ignored these claims , occasionally laughing .
( Bridgeman v. Corel [ wikipedia.org ] .
Sweat of the brow is not creation in US law ; go away .
) Our official stance in this time has been " sue and be damned .
" So the National Portrait Gallery has tried .
Here 's their letter [ wikimedia.org ] .
A lollipop for every misconception or unlikely or impossible demand .
This was sent after ( so they claim ) the WMF ignored their latest missive .
The editor they sent the threat to is ... an American [ wikipedia.org ] .
A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over uploading images that are public domain in the US to an American server    unambiguously , in established US law , not a copyright violation of any sort .
I wonder how the case will go .
The letter is particularly odious in that it admits that his actions were completely within US law , but threatens to make his life a misery just because they think they can unless he ( an individual ) can actually make the WMF do something the NPG wants .
This is actually worse than the RIAA .
It 's most unfortunate that the National Portrait Gallery considers this in any way sensible behaviour , considering how well we 've been going with museum partnerships for Wikipedia Loves Art [ wikipedia.org ]    the V&amp;A [ wikipedia.org ] were fantastically helpful and lovely people , who realise that spreading their name and exhibits far and wide is much more likely to get them money and fame than claims of copyright over works hundreds of years old .
I ca n't see this ending well for the National Portrait Gallery , whatever happens .
Anyone who could speak on their behalf at this level wo n't be in until Monday ; I wonder if they 'll be surprised at the people politely queueing with pitchforks and torches.I 'll be calling them [ npg.org.uk ] first thing Monday ( in my capacity as " just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics " ) to establish just what they think they 're doing here .
Other bloggers and , if interested , journalists may wish to do the same , to establish what their consistent response is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For several years, the National Portrait Gallery has claimed copyright over public domain images in their possession.
Wikimedia has ignored these claims, occasionally laughing.
(Bridgeman v. Corel [wikipedia.org].
Sweat of the brow is not creation in US law; go away.
) Our official stance in this time has been "sue and be damned.
"

So the National Portrait Gallery has tried.
Here's their letter [wikimedia.org].
A lollipop for every misconception or unlikely or impossible demand.
This was sent after (so they claim) the WMF ignored their latest missive.
The editor they sent the threat to is ... an American [wikipedia.org].
A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over uploading images that are public domain in the US to an American server — unambiguously, in established US law, not a copyright violation of any sort.
I wonder how the case will go.
The letter is particularly odious in that it admits that his actions were completely within US law, but threatens to make his life a misery just because they think they can unless he (an individual) can actually make the WMF do something the NPG wants.
This is actually worse than the RIAA.
It's most unfortunate that the National Portrait Gallery considers this in any way sensible behaviour, considering how well we've been going with museum partnerships for Wikipedia Loves Art [wikipedia.org] — the V&amp;A [wikipedia.org] were fantastically helpful and lovely people, who realise that spreading their name and exhibits far and wide is much more likely to get them money and fame than claims of copyright over works hundreds of years old.
I can't see this ending well for the National Portrait Gallery, whatever happens.
Anyone who could speak on their behalf at this level won't be in until Monday; I wonder if they'll be surprised at the people politely queueing with pitchforks and torches.I'll be calling them [npg.org.uk] first thing Monday (in my capacity as "just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics") to establish just what they think they're doing here.
Other bloggers and, if interested, journalists may wish to do the same, to establish what their consistent response is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661905</id>
	<title>If you thought your legal system...</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1247340660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you thought your legal system is bad, incomprehensible and overburdened - just remind yourself that your's is not anything like the UK's legal system!<br>
Unless you live in UK. And I am sorry for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you thought your legal system is bad , incomprehensible and overburdened - just remind yourself that your 's is not anything like the UK 's legal system !
Unless you live in UK .
And I am sorry for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you thought your legal system is bad, incomprehensible and overburdened - just remind yourself that your's is not anything like the UK's legal system!
Unless you live in UK.
And I am sorry for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660099</id>
	<title>He could have....</title>
	<author>julian67</author>
	<datestamp>1247328180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He could have just asked for permission to use the pictures.  The NPG is not some corporate hawk, it's publicly funded, having an ethos of education and self improvement for all, in the Victorian tradition.  The person who obtained the images chose to ignore this and harvest thousands of high resolution images (why does Wikipedia need high-res to display 96dpi???), circumventing copy protection in the process.  The sale of these images, at extremely reasonable and non-commercial rates, is one of the sources of funding for the NPG.</p><p>Dcoetzee has brought into conflict two organisations which should normally benefit from each other, damaged the reputation of Wikipedia and all around acted like an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He could have just asked for permission to use the pictures .
The NPG is not some corporate hawk , it 's publicly funded , having an ethos of education and self improvement for all , in the Victorian tradition .
The person who obtained the images chose to ignore this and harvest thousands of high resolution images ( why does Wikipedia need high-res to display 96dpi ? ? ?
) , circumventing copy protection in the process .
The sale of these images , at extremely reasonable and non-commercial rates , is one of the sources of funding for the NPG.Dcoetzee has brought into conflict two organisations which should normally benefit from each other , damaged the reputation of Wikipedia and all around acted like an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He could have just asked for permission to use the pictures.
The NPG is not some corporate hawk, it's publicly funded, having an ethos of education and self improvement for all, in the Victorian tradition.
The person who obtained the images chose to ignore this and harvest thousands of high resolution images (why does Wikipedia need high-res to display 96dpi???
), circumventing copy protection in the process.
The sale of these images, at extremely reasonable and non-commercial rates, is one of the sources of funding for the NPG.Dcoetzee has brought into conflict two organisations which should normally benefit from each other, damaged the reputation of Wikipedia and all around acted like an idiot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661265</id>
	<title>The Simple Solution...</title>
	<author>SwashbucklingCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1247335440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... to this problem is for the original user to ask the Wikimedia folks to remove the images and for some U.S. based person to download them from the site and then upload to Wikimedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... to this problem is for the original user to ask the Wikimedia folks to remove the images and for some U.S. based person to download them from the site and then upload to Wikimedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... to this problem is for the original user to ask the Wikimedia folks to remove the images and for some U.S. based person to download them from the site and then upload to Wikimedia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661941</id>
	<title>Re:Result:</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1247340960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not necessarily. It all depends on who starts sleeping with Jimbo Wales first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not necessarily .
It all depends on who starts sleeping with Jimbo Wales first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not necessarily.
It all depends on who starts sleeping with Jimbo Wales first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28666165</id>
	<title>British Copyright law for beginners...</title>
	<author>vorlich</author>
	<datestamp>1247394180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you produce any original work it is copyright. That's it. No need to mail it to yourself. If you take a photograph of anything in public (but not in the public domain) then that is copyright. If you take a photograph of someone the photo is still copyright but you would need a model release form signed by them to ensure you had full rights of commercial explotation. (The BBC has this agreement on its website for anyone who wants to give them license free images.) If you take a photograph for someone the contract makes it clear whether those commissioning the work own the copyright or the photographer retains the copyright. If you are employed full time to take photographs with their equipment and their materials - they own the copyright.<br> <br>The content of the photograph is irrelevant unless it contains an image of anything that is still copyright - the original copyright owners rights are infringed if you publish it - they will sue, you would be stupid to defend it. They will charge you two grand plus lawyers fees.<br> All of this is covered by the UK instrument of law:
<br>Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 <a href="http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga\_19880048\_en\_2#pt1-ch1-pb1-l1g1" title="hmso.gov.uk">http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga\_19880048\_en\_2#pt1-ch1-pb1-l1g1</a> [hmso.gov.uk] <br> where photographs and their contents are clearly defined:
<br>
<i>Artistic works
<br>
(1) In this Part "artistic work" means--
<br>
(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality,
<br>
    *<br>
     "photograph" means a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image may by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film;</i> <br>I am fairly certain that this is in accordance with the European Union Copyright laws since the EU has pursued a policy of uniformity in laws of this type.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you produce any original work it is copyright .
That 's it .
No need to mail it to yourself .
If you take a photograph of anything in public ( but not in the public domain ) then that is copyright .
If you take a photograph of someone the photo is still copyright but you would need a model release form signed by them to ensure you had full rights of commercial explotation .
( The BBC has this agreement on its website for anyone who wants to give them license free images .
) If you take a photograph for someone the contract makes it clear whether those commissioning the work own the copyright or the photographer retains the copyright .
If you are employed full time to take photographs with their equipment and their materials - they own the copyright .
The content of the photograph is irrelevant unless it contains an image of anything that is still copyright - the original copyright owners rights are infringed if you publish it - they will sue , you would be stupid to defend it .
They will charge you two grand plus lawyers fees .
All of this is covered by the UK instrument of law : Copyright , Designs and Patents Act 1988 http : //www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga \ _19880048 \ _en \ _2 # pt1-ch1-pb1-l1g1 [ hmso.gov.uk ] where photographs and their contents are clearly defined : Artistic works ( 1 ) In this Part " artistic work " means-- ( a ) a graphic work , photograph , sculpture or collage , irrespective of artistic quality , * " photograph " means a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image may by any means be produced , and which is not part of a film ; I am fairly certain that this is in accordance with the European Union Copyright laws since the EU has pursued a policy of uniformity in laws of this type .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you produce any original work it is copyright.
That's it.
No need to mail it to yourself.
If you take a photograph of anything in public (but not in the public domain) then that is copyright.
If you take a photograph of someone the photo is still copyright but you would need a model release form signed by them to ensure you had full rights of commercial explotation.
(The BBC has this agreement on its website for anyone who wants to give them license free images.
) If you take a photograph for someone the contract makes it clear whether those commissioning the work own the copyright or the photographer retains the copyright.
If you are employed full time to take photographs with their equipment and their materials - they own the copyright.
The content of the photograph is irrelevant unless it contains an image of anything that is still copyright - the original copyright owners rights are infringed if you publish it - they will sue, you would be stupid to defend it.
They will charge you two grand plus lawyers fees.
All of this is covered by the UK instrument of law:
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga\_19880048\_en\_2#pt1-ch1-pb1-l1g1 [hmso.gov.uk]  where photographs and their contents are clearly defined:

Artistic works

(1) In this Part "artistic work" means--

(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality,

    *
     "photograph" means a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image may by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film; I am fairly certain that this is in accordance with the European Union Copyright laws since the EU has pursued a policy of uniformity in laws of this type.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661441</id>
	<title>bogus</title>
	<author>DragonTHC</author>
	<datestamp>1247336820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if the photographer's goal was to create as close to facsimile as possible, then it's not a creative art work or derivative work.</p><p>It's documentation.  It's an authorized copy of the original.  Since the original is in the public domain, there is no copyright.  Unless under UK law, it's legal for someone to claim ownership of a work they didn't create.</p><p>If the original work is public domain, the copy is public domain.  If they claim otherwise, try to register copyrights on public domain works in the UK.  When you're told you can't copyright something in the public domain, cite this instance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if the photographer 's goal was to create as close to facsimile as possible , then it 's not a creative art work or derivative work.It 's documentation .
It 's an authorized copy of the original .
Since the original is in the public domain , there is no copyright .
Unless under UK law , it 's legal for someone to claim ownership of a work they did n't create.If the original work is public domain , the copy is public domain .
If they claim otherwise , try to register copyrights on public domain works in the UK .
When you 're told you ca n't copyright something in the public domain , cite this instance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if the photographer's goal was to create as close to facsimile as possible, then it's not a creative art work or derivative work.It's documentation.
It's an authorized copy of the original.
Since the original is in the public domain, there is no copyright.
Unless under UK law, it's legal for someone to claim ownership of a work they didn't create.If the original work is public domain, the copy is public domain.
If they claim otherwise, try to register copyrights on public domain works in the UK.
When you're told you can't copyright something in the public domain, cite this instance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664945</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247326140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"As you know, the images from our client's website that you have copied were made available from our client's website using 'Zoomify' software. As you know, Zoomify is an application that is used to publish photographic images in such a way that an entire high resolution image is never made available to a user although high-resolution extracts or 'tiles' are made available one-at-a-time. Our client used the Zoomify technology to protect our client's copyright in the high resolution images."</p></div><p>But Zoomify, AFAIK, wasn't "designed" to protect copyrighted works. It isn't a DRM technology. Its main purpose is to provide a nice responsive zoom feature for high-quality images that doesn't require the user to download the entire image every time he/she changes zoom. Nowhere on the Zoomify website do I see copy protection advertised as an intended feature of the software. The fact that it doesn't allow users to download an entire high-resolution image (which may or may not be under copyright) at once is--or should be, in this AC's opinon--completely beside the point. That's just a byproduct of how the software provides the zooming functionality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" As you know , the images from our client 's website that you have copied were made available from our client 's website using 'Zoomify ' software .
As you know , Zoomify is an application that is used to publish photographic images in such a way that an entire high resolution image is never made available to a user although high-resolution extracts or 'tiles ' are made available one-at-a-time .
Our client used the Zoomify technology to protect our client 's copyright in the high resolution images .
" But Zoomify , AFAIK , was n't " designed " to protect copyrighted works .
It is n't a DRM technology .
Its main purpose is to provide a nice responsive zoom feature for high-quality images that does n't require the user to download the entire image every time he/she changes zoom .
Nowhere on the Zoomify website do I see copy protection advertised as an intended feature of the software .
The fact that it does n't allow users to download an entire high-resolution image ( which may or may not be under copyright ) at once is--or should be , in this AC 's opinon--completely beside the point .
That 's just a byproduct of how the software provides the zooming functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As you know, the images from our client's website that you have copied were made available from our client's website using 'Zoomify' software.
As you know, Zoomify is an application that is used to publish photographic images in such a way that an entire high resolution image is never made available to a user although high-resolution extracts or 'tiles' are made available one-at-a-time.
Our client used the Zoomify technology to protect our client's copyright in the high resolution images.
"But Zoomify, AFAIK, wasn't "designed" to protect copyrighted works.
It isn't a DRM technology.
Its main purpose is to provide a nice responsive zoom feature for high-quality images that doesn't require the user to download the entire image every time he/she changes zoom.
Nowhere on the Zoomify website do I see copy protection advertised as an intended feature of the software.
The fact that it doesn't allow users to download an entire high-resolution image (which may or may not be under copyright) at once is--or should be, in this AC's opinon--completely beside the point.
That's just a byproduct of how the software provides the zooming functionality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661241</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247335260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They commissioned photographs that they knew would be protected under their local law, put them on a public access website with clear terms of use, and used technology to make it hard to violate those terms. If you worked for the NPG, what would you have done differently?</p><p>Regardless of living the other side of the ocean Dcoetzee is in the wrong and should remove the images.</p><p>(Incidentally escalation rather than negotiation is likely to damage Wikipedia as well, especially if your tone of abuse and mass calling suggestion are taken up by others.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They commissioned photographs that they knew would be protected under their local law , put them on a public access website with clear terms of use , and used technology to make it hard to violate those terms .
If you worked for the NPG , what would you have done differently ? Regardless of living the other side of the ocean Dcoetzee is in the wrong and should remove the images .
( Incidentally escalation rather than negotiation is likely to damage Wikipedia as well , especially if your tone of abuse and mass calling suggestion are taken up by others .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They commissioned photographs that they knew would be protected under their local law, put them on a public access website with clear terms of use, and used technology to make it hard to violate those terms.
If you worked for the NPG, what would you have done differently?Regardless of living the other side of the ocean Dcoetzee is in the wrong and should remove the images.
(Incidentally escalation rather than negotiation is likely to damage Wikipedia as well, especially if your tone of abuse and mass calling suggestion are taken up by others.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660319</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Josh04</author>
	<datestamp>1247329620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over uploading images that are public domain in the US to an American server &#226;" unambiguously, in established US law, not a copyright violation of any sort. I wonder how the case will go. "

Well done for completely glossing over that the images themselves are British, located in Britain. Thanks too for the strong implication that US law is the only law.

It's always fun when you meet a stereotype.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over uploading images that are public domain in the US to an American server   " unambiguously , in established US law , not a copyright violation of any sort .
I wonder how the case will go .
" Well done for completely glossing over that the images themselves are British , located in Britain .
Thanks too for the strong implication that US law is the only law .
It 's always fun when you meet a stereotype .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over uploading images that are public domain in the US to an American server â" unambiguously, in established US law, not a copyright violation of any sort.
I wonder how the case will go.
"

Well done for completely glossing over that the images themselves are British, located in Britain.
Thanks too for the strong implication that US law is the only law.
It's always fun when you meet a stereotype.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28662023</id>
	<title>Re:NPG web site makes it clear</title>
	<author>Angostura</author>
	<datestamp>1247341560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On point 2, presumably the NPG would argue that the revenue raised from the use of the picture would go on the upkeep of the collection, supporting staff, extending the collection, etc.</p><p>You will notice that the already have the ability to disseminate high quality repro via the Internet - which they do at their own site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On point 2 , presumably the NPG would argue that the revenue raised from the use of the picture would go on the upkeep of the collection , supporting staff , extending the collection , etc.You will notice that the already have the ability to disseminate high quality repro via the Internet - which they do at their own site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On point 2, presumably the NPG would argue that the revenue raised from the use of the picture would go on the upkeep of the collection, supporting staff, extending the collection, etc.You will notice that the already have the ability to disseminate high quality repro via the Internet - which they do at their own site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28666041</id>
	<title>He works for Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247391120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the user's wiki page:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dcoetzee</p><p>"Hi! I'm [real name], an American software developer at Microsoft Research<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>I see no reason to help or care about someone who works for Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the user 's wiki page : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User : Dcoetzee " Hi !
I 'm [ real name ] , an American software developer at Microsoft Research ... " I see no reason to help or care about someone who works for Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the user's wiki page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dcoetzee"Hi!
I'm [real name], an American software developer at Microsoft Research ..."I see no reason to help or care about someone who works for Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659779</id>
	<title>Result:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247325780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikipedia will cave and take them down, and they'll end up on Wikileaks...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia will cave and take them down , and they 'll end up on Wikileaks.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia will cave and take them down, and they'll end up on Wikileaks...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661221</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Macthorpe</author>
	<datestamp>1247335140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over uploading images that are public domain in the US to an American server &#226;" unambiguously, in established US law, not a copyright violation of any sort.</p></div><p>Should be:</p><p><i>A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over uploading images that are not public domain in the UK to an American server from a UK-based organisation - unambiguously, in established UK law, a copyright violation.</i></p><p>The images were taken in the UK and stored on a UK server. He is most certainly bound by UK law.</p><p>Seriously, how important is it to have these images actually on Wikipedia? Wouldn't it be possible to just link to the relevant NPG page? Alternatively, is your 'INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREEEEEEE' standpoint more important than being a civil human being who recognises that the NPG is non-profit like Wikipedia and that one of their key aims is to maintain access to these paintings to everyone?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over uploading images that are public domain in the US to an American server   " unambiguously , in established US law , not a copyright violation of any sort.Should be : A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over uploading images that are not public domain in the UK to an American server from a UK-based organisation - unambiguously , in established UK law , a copyright violation.The images were taken in the UK and stored on a UK server .
He is most certainly bound by UK law.Seriously , how important is it to have these images actually on Wikipedia ?
Would n't it be possible to just link to the relevant NPG page ?
Alternatively , is your 'INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREEEEEEE ' standpoint more important than being a civil human being who recognises that the NPG is non-profit like Wikipedia and that one of their key aims is to maintain access to these paintings to everyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over uploading images that are public domain in the US to an American server â" unambiguously, in established US law, not a copyright violation of any sort.Should be:A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over uploading images that are not public domain in the UK to an American server from a UK-based organisation - unambiguously, in established UK law, a copyright violation.The images were taken in the UK and stored on a UK server.
He is most certainly bound by UK law.Seriously, how important is it to have these images actually on Wikipedia?
Wouldn't it be possible to just link to the relevant NPG page?
Alternatively, is your 'INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREEEEEEE' standpoint more important than being a civil human being who recognises that the NPG is non-profit like Wikipedia and that one of their key aims is to maintain access to these paintings to everyone?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664201</id>
	<title>Re-upload with botnet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247315340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since WMF has no intention to remove them, the burden is now on the user Dcoetzee to remove them...</p><p>Which lead me to think why not let Dcoetzee to remove the photographs and let someone to re-upload them with botnet? (Or someone does anonymous user, and uploads them with library machine)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since WMF has no intention to remove them , the burden is now on the user Dcoetzee to remove them...Which lead me to think why not let Dcoetzee to remove the photographs and let someone to re-upload them with botnet ?
( Or someone does anonymous user , and uploads them with library machine )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since WMF has no intention to remove them, the burden is now on the user Dcoetzee to remove them...Which lead me to think why not let Dcoetzee to remove the photographs and let someone to re-upload them with botnet?
(Or someone does anonymous user, and uploads them with library machine)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660411</id>
	<title>screenshots?</title>
	<author>Zecheus</author>
	<datestamp>1247330220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I grabbed a screenshot of a picture of a painting, who would own it by UK law?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I grabbed a screenshot of a picture of a painting , who would own it by UK law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I grabbed a screenshot of a picture of a painting, who would own it by UK law?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28665123</id>
	<title>Re:NPG web site makes it clear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247329440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The linked page also has their pricing.  The maximum resolution they offer for reuse is 500 pixels high and a maximum of 720 pixels wide.  The cheapest they sell these for is &#194;&pound;90 + VAT.  I'm sure they would love Wikipedia to thrown down $500,000 for a bunch of tiny images.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The linked page also has their pricing .
The maximum resolution they offer for reuse is 500 pixels high and a maximum of 720 pixels wide .
The cheapest they sell these for is     90 + VAT .
I 'm sure they would love Wikipedia to thrown down $ 500,000 for a bunch of tiny images .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The linked page also has their pricing.
The maximum resolution they offer for reuse is 500 pixels high and a maximum of 720 pixels wide.
The cheapest they sell these for is Â£90 + VAT.
I'm sure they would love Wikipedia to thrown down $500,000 for a bunch of tiny images.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661815</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247339940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, actually...seeing as an exact photo reproduction of a 2D image that is already in the public domain is not, under US law, a copyrightable work...it's not possible that he circumvented any "technological measures...applied to a copyright work..."</p><p>The British law is different of course, but the Wiki editor being sued resides in the US, as do Wiki servers. Even if the NPG did bring this to court, in Britain, and found him guilty...I don't believe he would have much to fear, as long as he never travelled there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , actually...seeing as an exact photo reproduction of a 2D image that is already in the public domain is not , under US law , a copyrightable work...it 's not possible that he circumvented any " technological measures...applied to a copyright work... " The British law is different of course , but the Wiki editor being sued resides in the US , as do Wiki servers .
Even if the NPG did bring this to court , in Britain , and found him guilty...I do n't believe he would have much to fear , as long as he never travelled there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, actually...seeing as an exact photo reproduction of a 2D image that is already in the public domain is not, under US law, a copyrightable work...it's not possible that he circumvented any "technological measures...applied to a copyright work..."The British law is different of course, but the Wiki editor being sued resides in the US, as do Wiki servers.
Even if the NPG did bring this to court, in Britain, and found him guilty...I don't believe he would have much to fear, as long as he never travelled there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28740409</id>
	<title>For all non-UK/GB folk...</title>
	<author>Karem Lore</author>
	<datestamp>1247929080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's make this perfectly clear for you non-UK/GB folk.</p><p>It's my taxes that pay for the purchase, upkeep and display of all these works of art (and all other UK/GB tax payers).  Those works and the museum itself belong to the people of UK/GB (as in ownership), what is done with it is at the discretion of the body that we have appointed to do so.</p><p>They committed to, online, allow the viewing of said pieces of work (they didn't need to) at a cost to us the taxpayer.  We paid for the cameraman, the logistics and technical requirements to present these online to the rest of the world, at our cost.  We also permit, upon request and cost, to use those pictures which, under UK copyright law, belong to either the photographer or the employer of the photographer at the time the picture was take.  Irrelevant that it is a piece of public art, the art is, the image is not.  We have a right to charge for items under our copyright that cost us, the taxpayer, to produce.  Deal with it.</p><p>And isn't it ironic that when it's anti-US you lot scream the loudest, yet when an American does it with a picture of Obama, legal processes ensue... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack\_Obama\_\%22Hope\%22\_poster#Origin\_and\_copyright\_issues" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack\_Obama\_\%22Hope\%22\_poster#Origin\_and\_copyright\_issues</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's make this perfectly clear for you non-UK/GB folk.It 's my taxes that pay for the purchase , upkeep and display of all these works of art ( and all other UK/GB tax payers ) .
Those works and the museum itself belong to the people of UK/GB ( as in ownership ) , what is done with it is at the discretion of the body that we have appointed to do so.They committed to , online , allow the viewing of said pieces of work ( they did n't need to ) at a cost to us the taxpayer .
We paid for the cameraman , the logistics and technical requirements to present these online to the rest of the world , at our cost .
We also permit , upon request and cost , to use those pictures which , under UK copyright law , belong to either the photographer or the employer of the photographer at the time the picture was take .
Irrelevant that it is a piece of public art , the art is , the image is not .
We have a right to charge for items under our copyright that cost us , the taxpayer , to produce .
Deal with it.And is n't it ironic that when it 's anti-US you lot scream the loudest , yet when an American does it with a picture of Obama , legal processes ensue... http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack \ _Obama \ _ \ % 22Hope \ % 22 \ _poster # Origin \ _and \ _copyright \ _issues [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's make this perfectly clear for you non-UK/GB folk.It's my taxes that pay for the purchase, upkeep and display of all these works of art (and all other UK/GB tax payers).
Those works and the museum itself belong to the people of UK/GB (as in ownership), what is done with it is at the discretion of the body that we have appointed to do so.They committed to, online, allow the viewing of said pieces of work (they didn't need to) at a cost to us the taxpayer.
We paid for the cameraman, the logistics and technical requirements to present these online to the rest of the world, at our cost.
We also permit, upon request and cost, to use those pictures which, under UK copyright law, belong to either the photographer or the employer of the photographer at the time the picture was take.
Irrelevant that it is a piece of public art, the art is, the image is not.
We have a right to charge for items under our copyright that cost us, the taxpayer, to produce.
Deal with it.And isn't it ironic that when it's anti-US you lot scream the loudest, yet when an American does it with a picture of Obama, legal processes ensue... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack\_Obama\_\%22Hope\%22\_poster#Origin\_and\_copyright\_issues [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28777965</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1248192960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Julian67 would have it that "... the act of circumvention of copy prevention took place on UK based servers and he's guilty under UK law."</p><p>Actually, the opinion of NPG's hired lawyer to the contrary, there is widespread disagreement over whether the 2D reproduction of a public domain work is copyright itself, even in the UK. If not, there is no DMCA or WIPO treaty violation, either. If so, it comes down to whether a US citizen can be prosecuted for a UK copyright-circumvention offence.</p><p>This is problematic, because of another US slap in the face to the WIPO treaty and TRIPS accords; the Golan order invalidating the Uruguay rounds in US, where material that had been in the Public Domain in the US was returned to copyright status.</p><p>The judge in that case (Babcock) had refused to admit the first amendment as a defence, and found himself reversed by the tenth circuit appeals court;  &#226;oesince &#194; 514 has altered the traditional contours of copyright protection in a manner that implicates plaintiffs&#226;(TM) right to free expression, it must be subject to First Amendment review.&#226;  Golan, 501 F.3d at 1197.</p><p>So Judge Babcock did the First Amendment review, and pow, foreign copyright holders like NPG lost out: "In the United States, that body of law includes the bedrock principle that works in the public domain remain in the public domain.  Removing works from the public domain violated Plaintiffs&#226;(TM) vested First Amendment interests. "</p><p>This clearly has relevance even in the presence of a valid DMCA complaint by NPG.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Julian67 would have it that " ... the act of circumvention of copy prevention took place on UK based servers and he 's guilty under UK law .
" Actually , the opinion of NPG 's hired lawyer to the contrary , there is widespread disagreement over whether the 2D reproduction of a public domain work is copyright itself , even in the UK .
If not , there is no DMCA or WIPO treaty violation , either .
If so , it comes down to whether a US citizen can be prosecuted for a UK copyright-circumvention offence.This is problematic , because of another US slap in the face to the WIPO treaty and TRIPS accords ; the Golan order invalidating the Uruguay rounds in US , where material that had been in the Public Domain in the US was returned to copyright status.The judge in that case ( Babcock ) had refused to admit the first amendment as a defence , and found himself reversed by the tenth circuit appeals court ;   oesince   514 has altered the traditional contours of copyright protection in a manner that implicates plaintiffs   ( TM ) right to free expression , it must be subject to First Amendment review.   Golan , 501 F.3d at 1197.So Judge Babcock did the First Amendment review , and pow , foreign copyright holders like NPG lost out : " In the United States , that body of law includes the bedrock principle that works in the public domain remain in the public domain .
Removing works from the public domain violated Plaintiffs   ( TM ) vested First Amendment interests .
" This clearly has relevance even in the presence of a valid DMCA complaint by NPG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Julian67 would have it that "... the act of circumvention of copy prevention took place on UK based servers and he's guilty under UK law.
"Actually, the opinion of NPG's hired lawyer to the contrary, there is widespread disagreement over whether the 2D reproduction of a public domain work is copyright itself, even in the UK.
If not, there is no DMCA or WIPO treaty violation, either.
If so, it comes down to whether a US citizen can be prosecuted for a UK copyright-circumvention offence.This is problematic, because of another US slap in the face to the WIPO treaty and TRIPS accords; the Golan order invalidating the Uruguay rounds in US, where material that had been in the Public Domain in the US was returned to copyright status.The judge in that case (Babcock) had refused to admit the first amendment as a defence, and found himself reversed by the tenth circuit appeals court;  âoesince Â 514 has altered the traditional contours of copyright protection in a manner that implicates plaintiffsâ(TM) right to free expression, it must be subject to First Amendment review.â  Golan, 501 F.3d at 1197.So Judge Babcock did the First Amendment review, and pow, foreign copyright holders like NPG lost out: "In the United States, that body of law includes the bedrock principle that works in the public domain remain in the public domain.
Removing works from the public domain violated Plaintiffsâ(TM) vested First Amendment interests.
"This clearly has relevance even in the presence of a valid DMCA complaint by NPG.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660793</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247332500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Laugh all you want, Davey...the sooner Jimbo's ego-stroke project and the schmucks like you who are allowed to do as you wish to abuse innocent users is brought down, the better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Laugh all you want , Davey...the sooner Jimbo 's ego-stroke project and the schmucks like you who are allowed to do as you wish to abuse innocent users is brought down , the better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laugh all you want, Davey...the sooner Jimbo's ego-stroke project and the schmucks like you who are allowed to do as you wish to abuse innocent users is brought down, the better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28665967</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247431920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics</p><p>You misspelled <i>obnoxious spammer</i>, HTH!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topicsYou misspelled obnoxious spammer , HTH !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topicsYou misspelled obnoxious spammer, HTH!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660283</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247329320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, mate, you are coming across as "Music wants to be freeeeeee" bittorrenter here.</p><p>These photos took the NPG a lot of money to get taken and they recoup some of that cash by selling high res images.  They are trying to protect that business model.  UK law (where the images were taken, and stored) probably protects it.  They have offered to provide low res photos for wikimedia.  What exactly is the problem?</p><p>The net result of your position is that other museums in the UK will stop making their catalogues available on t'internet, because anyone can rip em off.  How is that in anyone's interest?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , mate , you are coming across as " Music wants to be freeeeeee " bittorrenter here.These photos took the NPG a lot of money to get taken and they recoup some of that cash by selling high res images .
They are trying to protect that business model .
UK law ( where the images were taken , and stored ) probably protects it .
They have offered to provide low res photos for wikimedia .
What exactly is the problem ? The net result of your position is that other museums in the UK will stop making their catalogues available on t'internet , because anyone can rip em off .
How is that in anyone 's interest ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, mate, you are coming across as "Music wants to be freeeeeee" bittorrenter here.These photos took the NPG a lot of money to get taken and they recoup some of that cash by selling high res images.
They are trying to protect that business model.
UK law (where the images were taken, and stored) probably protects it.
They have offered to provide low res photos for wikimedia.
What exactly is the problem?The net result of your position is that other museums in the UK will stop making their catalogues available on t'internet, because anyone can rip em off.
How is that in anyone's interest?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659961</id>
	<title>These plaintiffs are being very reasonable</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1247327040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've read the complaint. (OK, I admit it, I'm a Slashdot user who Reads The Fine Article.) They've being completely reasonable: they explain the law, they ask for (almost entirely) reasonable steps to avoid the lawsuit, and they offer to cooperate in providing \_low resolution\_ images for the use of Wikimedia.</p><p>If I ever get sued, I want to be sued by these people. They're working with the law and with their client's needs, and not violating the public's needs for information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've read the complaint .
( OK , I admit it , I 'm a Slashdot user who Reads The Fine Article .
) They 've being completely reasonable : they explain the law , they ask for ( almost entirely ) reasonable steps to avoid the lawsuit , and they offer to cooperate in providing \ _low resolution \ _ images for the use of Wikimedia.If I ever get sued , I want to be sued by these people .
They 're working with the law and with their client 's needs , and not violating the public 's needs for information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've read the complaint.
(OK, I admit it, I'm a Slashdot user who Reads The Fine Article.
) They've being completely reasonable: they explain the law, they ask for (almost entirely) reasonable steps to avoid the lawsuit, and they offer to cooperate in providing \_low resolution\_ images for the use of Wikimedia.If I ever get sued, I want to be sued by these people.
They're working with the law and with their client's needs, and not violating the public's needs for information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28663209</id>
	<title>Taking decent photos of paintings IS wicked hard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247307000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People may chuckle and think that taking photos of paintings is easy, it's not.</p><p>Watercolour paintings are fairly easy to photograph, because they are rather flat and usually not shiny. Even if the painter have used 20 layers, they are very thin layers. But if the painter have used some screwy pigment then there is trouble. Some pigments reflex visible light that won't be catched on film. Some pigments reflex light that the human eye won't see but the film will. Digital cameras is even worse in this department. Pigments alone may lead to a lot of experimenting with different light sources and filters. There are also a lot of pigments that show different colours being seen at different angles of the brushstroke, something a lot of painters have made use of. How do you catch those  with a camera, were you have to take the photo up front? Then there is fluorescent pigments, like iron and phtalo blues, they glow at twilight (when they emit "extra" light) but are rather bleak under bright lights (when they absorb some light), unfortunetly it's rather hard to catch other aspects of the paintings in twilight.</p><p>Then there is oil, tempera and acrylic. The pigments are ususally a bit less problematic, because the varnish and binders remove some of the problematic lights. But the varnish and binders can also be used to create optical effects, most of these are hard or impossible to catch on film. People think of paintings as flat, but they are not. Most artist make heavy use of optical effects that require depth in the paint layer. A paint and varnish layer may just be  millimeters thick (less then a millimeter in tempera, but still thicker then watercolour), but you can make a lot out of that tiny depth and they might consist of hundreds of different layers of paint and varnish. Then there is also the problem with glares and shadows. A lot painters use them for effects, but even if they don't, they are ususally present in a painting because there was no need to remove them, the human brain just ignores them in a painting. But caught on a photograph those glares and shadows suddenly become very disturbing.</p><p>I've done some copying by hand and I would say that to me it would be a lot easier to make decent reproductions of the paintings in question (renaissance paintings are usually very easy to copy, despite common beliefs are more modern paintings  harder top copy) hand then with a camera, a bit more time consuming but easier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People may chuckle and think that taking photos of paintings is easy , it 's not.Watercolour paintings are fairly easy to photograph , because they are rather flat and usually not shiny .
Even if the painter have used 20 layers , they are very thin layers .
But if the painter have used some screwy pigment then there is trouble .
Some pigments reflex visible light that wo n't be catched on film .
Some pigments reflex light that the human eye wo n't see but the film will .
Digital cameras is even worse in this department .
Pigments alone may lead to a lot of experimenting with different light sources and filters .
There are also a lot of pigments that show different colours being seen at different angles of the brushstroke , something a lot of painters have made use of .
How do you catch those with a camera , were you have to take the photo up front ?
Then there is fluorescent pigments , like iron and phtalo blues , they glow at twilight ( when they emit " extra " light ) but are rather bleak under bright lights ( when they absorb some light ) , unfortunetly it 's rather hard to catch other aspects of the paintings in twilight.Then there is oil , tempera and acrylic .
The pigments are ususally a bit less problematic , because the varnish and binders remove some of the problematic lights .
But the varnish and binders can also be used to create optical effects , most of these are hard or impossible to catch on film .
People think of paintings as flat , but they are not .
Most artist make heavy use of optical effects that require depth in the paint layer .
A paint and varnish layer may just be millimeters thick ( less then a millimeter in tempera , but still thicker then watercolour ) , but you can make a lot out of that tiny depth and they might consist of hundreds of different layers of paint and varnish .
Then there is also the problem with glares and shadows .
A lot painters use them for effects , but even if they do n't , they are ususally present in a painting because there was no need to remove them , the human brain just ignores them in a painting .
But caught on a photograph those glares and shadows suddenly become very disturbing.I 've done some copying by hand and I would say that to me it would be a lot easier to make decent reproductions of the paintings in question ( renaissance paintings are usually very easy to copy , despite common beliefs are more modern paintings harder top copy ) hand then with a camera , a bit more time consuming but easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People may chuckle and think that taking photos of paintings is easy, it's not.Watercolour paintings are fairly easy to photograph, because they are rather flat and usually not shiny.
Even if the painter have used 20 layers, they are very thin layers.
But if the painter have used some screwy pigment then there is trouble.
Some pigments reflex visible light that won't be catched on film.
Some pigments reflex light that the human eye won't see but the film will.
Digital cameras is even worse in this department.
Pigments alone may lead to a lot of experimenting with different light sources and filters.
There are also a lot of pigments that show different colours being seen at different angles of the brushstroke, something a lot of painters have made use of.
How do you catch those  with a camera, were you have to take the photo up front?
Then there is fluorescent pigments, like iron and phtalo blues, they glow at twilight (when they emit "extra" light) but are rather bleak under bright lights (when they absorb some light), unfortunetly it's rather hard to catch other aspects of the paintings in twilight.Then there is oil, tempera and acrylic.
The pigments are ususally a bit less problematic, because the varnish and binders remove some of the problematic lights.
But the varnish and binders can also be used to create optical effects, most of these are hard or impossible to catch on film.
People think of paintings as flat, but they are not.
Most artist make heavy use of optical effects that require depth in the paint layer.
A paint and varnish layer may just be  millimeters thick (less then a millimeter in tempera, but still thicker then watercolour), but you can make a lot out of that tiny depth and they might consist of hundreds of different layers of paint and varnish.
Then there is also the problem with glares and shadows.
A lot painters use them for effects, but even if they don't, they are ususally present in a painting because there was no need to remove them, the human brain just ignores them in a painting.
But caught on a photograph those glares and shadows suddenly become very disturbing.I've done some copying by hand and I would say that to me it would be a lot easier to make decent reproductions of the paintings in question (renaissance paintings are usually very easy to copy, despite common beliefs are more modern paintings  harder top copy) hand then with a camera, a bit more time consuming but easier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28668847</id>
	<title>Re:These plaintiffs are being very reasonable</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1247428560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh hurrah! Let's throw a party. Aren't they being so <i>reasonable</i> that when someone in another country hasn't broken the law, they offer them a choice of being sued, or having <i>low resolution</i> images?</p><p>I bet you'd love to be sued by someone from somewhere like China, who offers you the reasonable choice of taking down some political statements it disagrees with, or getting sued?</p><p><i>They're working with the law and with their client's needs</i></p><p>Who is their client?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh hurrah !
Let 's throw a party .
Are n't they being so reasonable that when someone in another country has n't broken the law , they offer them a choice of being sued , or having low resolution images ? I bet you 'd love to be sued by someone from somewhere like China , who offers you the reasonable choice of taking down some political statements it disagrees with , or getting sued ? They 're working with the law and with their client 's needsWho is their client ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh hurrah!
Let's throw a party.
Aren't they being so reasonable that when someone in another country hasn't broken the law, they offer them a choice of being sued, or having low resolution images?I bet you'd love to be sued by someone from somewhere like China, who offers you the reasonable choice of taking down some political statements it disagrees with, or getting sued?They're working with the law and with their client's needsWho is their client?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28662021</id>
	<title>Re:NPG web site makes it clear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247341560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) The law is flawed: The act of photographing a painting with the best quality of reproduction of the original is a technical exercise, not a creative act. It's not essentially different from an experienced photocopier operator making a photocopy. It should not therefore add additional copyright privileges over and above the item that is being photographed.</p></div><p>Heh.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) Tell that to those who defend Richard Prince. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard\_Prince#Rephotography" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard\_Prince#Rephotography</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) The law is flawed : The act of photographing a painting with the best quality of reproduction of the original is a technical exercise , not a creative act .
It 's not essentially different from an experienced photocopier operator making a photocopy .
It should not therefore add additional copyright privileges over and above the item that is being photographed.Heh .
: - ) Tell that to those who defend Richard Prince .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard \ _Prince # Rephotography [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) The law is flawed: The act of photographing a painting with the best quality of reproduction of the original is a technical exercise, not a creative act.
It's not essentially different from an experienced photocopier operator making a photocopy.
It should not therefore add additional copyright privileges over and above the item that is being photographed.Heh.
:-) Tell that to those who defend Richard Prince.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard\_Prince#Rephotography [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28666617</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247403060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, the DMCA prohibits circumvention of technological measures protecting <i>copyrighted works.</i> A work which is not copyrighted under US law could hardly have its copyright protection measures circumvented, as there is no US copyright to protect.</p><p>Secondly, I sincerely doubt that any "circumvention of copy prevention took place on UK based servers." If the software used to reassemble the partial copies provided resided on the museum's own servers, someone needs to call security.</p><p>And finally, can providing a complete set of "tiles" (or partial copies, akin to providing machine-readable copies of a textual work one page at a time) really be construed as a copyright protection measure? I really don't think packetization is an effective access control mechanism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , the DMCA prohibits circumvention of technological measures protecting copyrighted works .
A work which is not copyrighted under US law could hardly have its copyright protection measures circumvented , as there is no US copyright to protect.Secondly , I sincerely doubt that any " circumvention of copy prevention took place on UK based servers .
" If the software used to reassemble the partial copies provided resided on the museum 's own servers , someone needs to call security.And finally , can providing a complete set of " tiles " ( or partial copies , akin to providing machine-readable copies of a textual work one page at a time ) really be construed as a copyright protection measure ?
I really do n't think packetization is an effective access control mechanism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, the DMCA prohibits circumvention of technological measures protecting copyrighted works.
A work which is not copyrighted under US law could hardly have its copyright protection measures circumvented, as there is no US copyright to protect.Secondly, I sincerely doubt that any "circumvention of copy prevention took place on UK based servers.
" If the software used to reassemble the partial copies provided resided on the museum's own servers, someone needs to call security.And finally, can providing a complete set of "tiles" (or partial copies, akin to providing machine-readable copies of a textual work one page at a time) really be construed as a copyright protection measure?
I really don't think packetization is an effective access control mechanism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660279</id>
	<title>Re:These plaintiffs are being very reasonable</title>
	<author>Xadnem</author>
	<datestamp>1247329320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What exactly are the client's 'needs' in this case, as a publicly funded organisation?  Or rather, where is the harm/what is their injury?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly are the client 's 'needs ' in this case , as a publicly funded organisation ?
Or rather , where is the harm/what is their injury ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly are the client's 'needs' in this case, as a publicly funded organisation?
Or rather, where is the harm/what is their injury?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661579</id>
	<title>the state of the UK today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247337840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so the paintings are in the public domain, the NPG are privileged to hang them, they pay some dipshit with at least one finger and one eye and a camera to photograph them, who was paid out of public money to do so and now they want to charge the public, who own the paintings, to use the photos that the public paid for because they won't allow the public to take their own...am I missing something here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so the paintings are in the public domain , the NPG are privileged to hang them , they pay some dipshit with at least one finger and one eye and a camera to photograph them , who was paid out of public money to do so and now they want to charge the public , who own the paintings , to use the photos that the public paid for because they wo n't allow the public to take their own...am I missing something here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so the paintings are in the public domain, the NPG are privileged to hang them, they pay some dipshit with at least one finger and one eye and a camera to photograph them, who was paid out of public money to do so and now they want to charge the public, who own the paintings, to use the photos that the public paid for because they won't allow the public to take their own...am I missing something here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28674213</id>
	<title>Re:I got one of these letters in 2004.</title>
	<author>Alsee</author>
	<datestamp>1247486220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What most irks me about this is that again we have people from the US arguing that their rules apply</i></p><p>For what it's worth, I at least am no hypocrite there.</p><p>I am American and I bitch quite loudly when I see US companies (or other entities) attempting to push US law against people and events outside the US.</p><p>-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What most irks me about this is that again we have people from the US arguing that their rules applyFor what it 's worth , I at least am no hypocrite there.I am American and I bitch quite loudly when I see US companies ( or other entities ) attempting to push US law against people and events outside the US.-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What most irks me about this is that again we have people from the US arguing that their rules applyFor what it's worth, I at least am no hypocrite there.I am American and I bitch quite loudly when I see US companies (or other entities) attempting to push US law against people and events outside the US.-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660291</id>
	<title>Re:The law is on London's side</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247329380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of them are located in Florida, USA, but I think wikimedia is about to start up a new data center in the Netherlands, Europe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of them are located in Florida , USA , but I think wikimedia is about to start up a new data center in the Netherlands , Europe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of them are located in Florida, USA, but I think wikimedia is about to start up a new data center in the Netherlands, Europe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28662209</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247342760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While he may have circumvented copy protection, you may note that it only applies to "copyright work."  It's not copyrighted in the US, and thus not an issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While he may have circumvented copy protection , you may note that it only applies to " copyright work .
" It 's not copyrighted in the US , and thus not an issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While he may have circumvented copy protection, you may note that it only applies to "copyright work.
"  It's not copyrighted in the US, and thus not an issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28674787</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247492100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Circumvention in itself isn't necessarily an illegal act. If I come across a 5 yard line of fencing in the middle of a (public) field with a sign saying "don't walk round behind this fence or I will sue you!", and I walk round it, or I find a (public, ordinary) street with a sign saying "don't photograph this street" and I ignore the sign and take a picture of the street, thats not trespass. The fact something's got a sign "don't enter" or "don't photo me" doesn't mean that bypassing is in and of itself illegal. It more usually becomes a legal issue when the fence is there to prevent an illegal act and someone circumvents it to pursue the illegal act.</p><p>If something isn't copyright (as these photos of art are not for the American visitor under US law), then does that not suggest a right to disregard what is to him, improper prevention of a perfectly legal act?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Circumvention in itself is n't necessarily an illegal act .
If I come across a 5 yard line of fencing in the middle of a ( public ) field with a sign saying " do n't walk round behind this fence or I will sue you !
" , and I walk round it , or I find a ( public , ordinary ) street with a sign saying " do n't photograph this street " and I ignore the sign and take a picture of the street , thats not trespass .
The fact something 's got a sign " do n't enter " or " do n't photo me " does n't mean that bypassing is in and of itself illegal .
It more usually becomes a legal issue when the fence is there to prevent an illegal act and someone circumvents it to pursue the illegal act.If something is n't copyright ( as these photos of art are not for the American visitor under US law ) , then does that not suggest a right to disregard what is to him , improper prevention of a perfectly legal act ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Circumvention in itself isn't necessarily an illegal act.
If I come across a 5 yard line of fencing in the middle of a (public) field with a sign saying "don't walk round behind this fence or I will sue you!
", and I walk round it, or I find a (public, ordinary) street with a sign saying "don't photograph this street" and I ignore the sign and take a picture of the street, thats not trespass.
The fact something's got a sign "don't enter" or "don't photo me" doesn't mean that bypassing is in and of itself illegal.
It more usually becomes a legal issue when the fence is there to prevent an illegal act and someone circumvents it to pursue the illegal act.If something isn't copyright (as these photos of art are not for the American visitor under US law), then does that not suggest a right to disregard what is to him, improper prevention of a perfectly legal act?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28666705</id>
	<title>Re:He could have....</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1247404440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The person who obtained the images chose to ignore this and harvest thousands of high resolution images (why does Wikipedia need high-res to display 96dpi???)</p></div><p>Capcom once defined <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show\_msgs.php?topic\_id=26503821" title="gamespot.com">state-of-the-art high resolution graphics</a> [gamespot.com] as 256x240px.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The person who obtained the images chose to ignore this and harvest thousands of high resolution images ( why does Wikipedia need high-res to display 96dpi ? ? ?
) Capcom once defined state-of-the-art high resolution graphics [ gamespot.com ] as 256x240px .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The person who obtained the images chose to ignore this and harvest thousands of high resolution images (why does Wikipedia need high-res to display 96dpi???
)Capcom once defined state-of-the-art high resolution graphics [gamespot.com] as 256x240px.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660791</id>
	<title>Not under US law,. it isn't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247332500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US is in the process of extraditing Gary McKinnon on the basis that he hacked into a US server, and that the crime (hacking) was committed in the US even though McKinnon was in the UK at the time.<p>If this principle was applied in this case, the uploader could be liable because he actually acquired the images in the UK.</p><p>Having said that, I apologise for the fact that our entire government is run by an unelected chinless aristocracy, similar to the old Soviet nomenklatura, who still think of us as "subjects" not citizens. What you are seeing here is their attitude - we run the country, national assets belong to us not you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US is in the process of extraditing Gary McKinnon on the basis that he hacked into a US server , and that the crime ( hacking ) was committed in the US even though McKinnon was in the UK at the time.If this principle was applied in this case , the uploader could be liable because he actually acquired the images in the UK.Having said that , I apologise for the fact that our entire government is run by an unelected chinless aristocracy , similar to the old Soviet nomenklatura , who still think of us as " subjects " not citizens .
What you are seeing here is their attitude - we run the country , national assets belong to us not you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US is in the process of extraditing Gary McKinnon on the basis that he hacked into a US server, and that the crime (hacking) was committed in the US even though McKinnon was in the UK at the time.If this principle was applied in this case, the uploader could be liable because he actually acquired the images in the UK.Having said that, I apologise for the fact that our entire government is run by an unelected chinless aristocracy, similar to the old Soviet nomenklatura, who still think of us as "subjects" not citizens.
What you are seeing here is their attitude - we run the country, national assets belong to us not you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28663075</id>
	<title>Man does this make MY life easy!</title>
	<author>Qubit</author>
	<datestamp>1247305980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was just talking to a friend about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex\_Sinaiticus" title="wikipedia.org">Codex Sinaiticus</a> [wikipedia.org] which was recently scanned and <a href="http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/" title="codexsinaiticus.org">put online here</a> [codexsinaiticus.org].</p><p>Wikimedia Commons does not have high-res scans of it, but the Codex Sinaiticus website has some really high-res images. Unfortunately they're only accessible though a Flash interface, but I'm sure that with a little scripting one could easily suck-out the raw image data. Reproduction of those images on other websites, however, may be illegal <a href="http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/copyright.aspx" title="codexsinaiticus.org">according to the Codex Sinaiticus website</a> [codexsinaiticus.org]:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Copyright</p><p>This electronic version of Codex Sinaiticus is provided only for non-commercial personal and educational use, by the British Library, Leipzig University Library, St Catherine's Monaster at Sinai and the National Library of Russia.</p><p>The original item itself is in the public domain in most jurisdictions and therefore not protected by copyright under applicable laws. However rights in the electronic copy and certain associated metadata are owned by the holding institutions. If you wish to make use of this electronic copy or its metadata other than for non-commercial personal or educational use, you must first obtain the written permission of the relevant institution.</p></div><p>Those rules may make sense according to UK copyright law, but as others have pointed out in this thread, mere reproductions of 2D images are not inherently eligible for copyright protection as they are not novel. My friend warned me about trying to copy this data from the Codex site as it might open me up for legal liability in the UK, especially if I ever were to travel there again.</p><p>But now I don't have to bother: Someone else is already testing the waters! I eagerly await the results of this case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was just talking to a friend about the Codex Sinaiticus [ wikipedia.org ] which was recently scanned and put online here [ codexsinaiticus.org ] .Wikimedia Commons does not have high-res scans of it , but the Codex Sinaiticus website has some really high-res images .
Unfortunately they 're only accessible though a Flash interface , but I 'm sure that with a little scripting one could easily suck-out the raw image data .
Reproduction of those images on other websites , however , may be illegal according to the Codex Sinaiticus website [ codexsinaiticus.org ] : CopyrightThis electronic version of Codex Sinaiticus is provided only for non-commercial personal and educational use , by the British Library , Leipzig University Library , St Catherine 's Monaster at Sinai and the National Library of Russia.The original item itself is in the public domain in most jurisdictions and therefore not protected by copyright under applicable laws .
However rights in the electronic copy and certain associated metadata are owned by the holding institutions .
If you wish to make use of this electronic copy or its metadata other than for non-commercial personal or educational use , you must first obtain the written permission of the relevant institution.Those rules may make sense according to UK copyright law , but as others have pointed out in this thread , mere reproductions of 2D images are not inherently eligible for copyright protection as they are not novel .
My friend warned me about trying to copy this data from the Codex site as it might open me up for legal liability in the UK , especially if I ever were to travel there again.But now I do n't have to bother : Someone else is already testing the waters !
I eagerly await the results of this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was just talking to a friend about the Codex Sinaiticus [wikipedia.org] which was recently scanned and put online here [codexsinaiticus.org].Wikimedia Commons does not have high-res scans of it, but the Codex Sinaiticus website has some really high-res images.
Unfortunately they're only accessible though a Flash interface, but I'm sure that with a little scripting one could easily suck-out the raw image data.
Reproduction of those images on other websites, however, may be illegal according to the Codex Sinaiticus website [codexsinaiticus.org]:CopyrightThis electronic version of Codex Sinaiticus is provided only for non-commercial personal and educational use, by the British Library, Leipzig University Library, St Catherine's Monaster at Sinai and the National Library of Russia.The original item itself is in the public domain in most jurisdictions and therefore not protected by copyright under applicable laws.
However rights in the electronic copy and certain associated metadata are owned by the holding institutions.
If you wish to make use of this electronic copy or its metadata other than for non-commercial personal or educational use, you must first obtain the written permission of the relevant institution.Those rules may make sense according to UK copyright law, but as others have pointed out in this thread, mere reproductions of 2D images are not inherently eligible for copyright protection as they are not novel.
My friend warned me about trying to copy this data from the Codex site as it might open me up for legal liability in the UK, especially if I ever were to travel there again.But now I don't have to bother: Someone else is already testing the waters!
I eagerly await the results of this case.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660211</id>
	<title>Re:The law is on London's side</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247328960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope - the uploader is in the US, the servers are in the US, the WMF is in the US. This was unambiguously legal in the US under well-established copyright law.

</p><p>They're making threats because they think they can bully him anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope - the uploader is in the US , the servers are in the US , the WMF is in the US .
This was unambiguously legal in the US under well-established copyright law .
They 're making threats because they think they can bully him anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope - the uploader is in the US, the servers are in the US, the WMF is in the US.
This was unambiguously legal in the US under well-established copyright law.
They're making threats because they think they can bully him anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661261</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247335380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what's it like being so stupid?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what 's it like being so stupid ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what's it like being so stupid?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660497</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247330580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is actually worse than the RIAA.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, it's not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is actually worse than the RIAA.No , it 's not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is actually worse than the RIAA.No, it's not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28665177</id>
	<title>Sue them back.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1247330220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its YOUR money, they cant withhold what you, public, bought with YOUR money from YOU. especially sue the responsibles in person. they are the ones who should pay for misusing public authority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its YOUR money , they cant withhold what you , public , bought with YOUR money from YOU .
especially sue the responsibles in person .
they are the ones who should pay for misusing public authority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its YOUR money, they cant withhold what you, public, bought with YOUR money from YOU.
especially sue the responsibles in person.
they are the ones who should pay for misusing public authority.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661397</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247336520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here we have a lovely example of an attempt by a copyright owner (whom in this case does not even own the copyrights, as the works are in the public domain) trying to pretend that the DMCA was ever intended to punish the circumvention of copy protection on works *for which no actual copyright exists*.</p><p>If you do not own the copyright on a work, then slapping copy-protection on it does not make that work yours. Which bit of this is hard to understand?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here we have a lovely example of an attempt by a copyright owner ( whom in this case does not even own the copyrights , as the works are in the public domain ) trying to pretend that the DMCA was ever intended to punish the circumvention of copy protection on works * for which no actual copyright exists * .If you do not own the copyright on a work , then slapping copy-protection on it does not make that work yours .
Which bit of this is hard to understand ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here we have a lovely example of an attempt by a copyright owner (whom in this case does not even own the copyrights, as the works are in the public domain) trying to pretend that the DMCA was ever intended to punish the circumvention of copy protection on works *for which no actual copyright exists*.If you do not own the copyright on a work, then slapping copy-protection on it does not make that work yours.
Which bit of this is hard to understand?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661325</id>
	<title>Re:Heart of the global nature of the internet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247335800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>QED no crime was committed. </i> <br> <br>
But - if harm is done, and this is a big "if"  - the act of infringement does cause harm, the harm is done in the UK, to a body in the UK.<br> <br>
The internet does make this sort of thing kinda complicated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>QED no crime was committed .
But - if harm is done , and this is a big " if " - the act of infringement does cause harm , the harm is done in the UK , to a body in the UK .
The internet does make this sort of thing kinda complicated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>QED no crime was committed.
But - if harm is done, and this is a big "if"  - the act of infringement does cause harm, the harm is done in the UK, to a body in the UK.
The internet does make this sort of thing kinda complicated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661475</id>
	<title>Re:These plaintiffs are being very reasonable</title>
	<author>AlHunt</author>
	<datestamp>1247337060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;They've being completely reasonable:</p><p>I'm kind of bothered by the "permanently delete all copies" sort of language.  They're demanding permanent deletion from computers over which he has no control (Wikimedia's).  What about copies in his browser cache?</p><p>The whole thing is probably just posturing since it seems the allegedly offending party isn't under UK jurisdiction anyway.  I;d suggest he never vacation there, though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; They 've being completely reasonable : I 'm kind of bothered by the " permanently delete all copies " sort of language .
They 're demanding permanent deletion from computers over which he has no control ( Wikimedia 's ) .
What about copies in his browser cache ? The whole thing is probably just posturing since it seems the allegedly offending party is n't under UK jurisdiction anyway .
I ; d suggest he never vacation there , though .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;They've being completely reasonable:I'm kind of bothered by the "permanently delete all copies" sort of language.
They're demanding permanent deletion from computers over which he has no control (Wikimedia's).
What about copies in his browser cache?The whole thing is probably just posturing since it seems the allegedly offending party isn't under UK jurisdiction anyway.
I;d suggest he never vacation there, though ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664271</id>
	<title>Re:The Simple Solution...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247316060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>User is U.S based, we need *anonymous* user to re-upload them. (Since WMF is not removing them!) Hunting for public WLAN's...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>User is U.S based , we need * anonymous * user to re-upload them .
( Since WMF is not removing them !
) Hunting for public WLAN 's.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>User is U.S based, we need *anonymous* user to re-upload them.
(Since WMF is not removing them!
) Hunting for public WLAN's...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660015</id>
	<title>Wait a sec- he took the photos or someone else?</title>
	<author>purduephotog</author>
	<datestamp>1247327460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just re-read the letter- they're claiming he downloaded the images that someone else took and uploaded them to Wiki.  That is a clear violation in every sense of the law- he doesn't own the images (public domain) and he is using someone elses work without attribution.</p><p>I was under the impression he had taken the photos himself and uploaded them.  If that's not the case then he's an idiot and really ought to do the right thing here- remove them- and redirect them to the museum's website.</p><p>There may be some room for negotiation but I'd say he's starting from a deep hole.</p><p>Sorry for misreading it- editors could do a little better job editing story titles to reflect what is actually happening rather than just putting their spin on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just re-read the letter- they 're claiming he downloaded the images that someone else took and uploaded them to Wiki .
That is a clear violation in every sense of the law- he does n't own the images ( public domain ) and he is using someone elses work without attribution.I was under the impression he had taken the photos himself and uploaded them .
If that 's not the case then he 's an idiot and really ought to do the right thing here- remove them- and redirect them to the museum 's website.There may be some room for negotiation but I 'd say he 's starting from a deep hole.Sorry for misreading it- editors could do a little better job editing story titles to reflect what is actually happening rather than just putting their spin on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just re-read the letter- they're claiming he downloaded the images that someone else took and uploaded them to Wiki.
That is a clear violation in every sense of the law- he doesn't own the images (public domain) and he is using someone elses work without attribution.I was under the impression he had taken the photos himself and uploaded them.
If that's not the case then he's an idiot and really ought to do the right thing here- remove them- and redirect them to the museum's website.There may be some room for negotiation but I'd say he's starting from a deep hole.Sorry for misreading it- editors could do a little better job editing story titles to reflect what is actually happening rather than just putting their spin on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664063</id>
	<title>The wikimedia user is being obnoxious.</title>
	<author>TermV</author>
	<datestamp>1247313960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scraping photographs that somebody spent a lot of time, money and effort to capture and process from their website and uploading it somewhere else where it is presumably relicensed is an obnoxious thing to do even if it's not illegal in the US due to some legal technicality. If these guys wanted these images so badly they should have arranged to use their own resources to either license or take the photographs themselves.</p><p>People these days are so morally bankrupt when it comes to digital content that they can't recognize right from wrong. My guess is buddy would have done the same regardless of the actual legal status in the US and he just happened to get lucky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scraping photographs that somebody spent a lot of time , money and effort to capture and process from their website and uploading it somewhere else where it is presumably relicensed is an obnoxious thing to do even if it 's not illegal in the US due to some legal technicality .
If these guys wanted these images so badly they should have arranged to use their own resources to either license or take the photographs themselves.People these days are so morally bankrupt when it comes to digital content that they ca n't recognize right from wrong .
My guess is buddy would have done the same regardless of the actual legal status in the US and he just happened to get lucky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scraping photographs that somebody spent a lot of time, money and effort to capture and process from their website and uploading it somewhere else where it is presumably relicensed is an obnoxious thing to do even if it's not illegal in the US due to some legal technicality.
If these guys wanted these images so badly they should have arranged to use their own resources to either license or take the photographs themselves.People these days are so morally bankrupt when it comes to digital content that they can't recognize right from wrong.
My guess is buddy would have done the same regardless of the actual legal status in the US and he just happened to get lucky.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28666801</id>
	<title>NPG vandalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247405940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://katrina.cs.caltech.edu/erenrich\_rnd345/scanner\_final/company\_selection.php?company\_name=National+Portrait+Gallery" title="caltech.edu" rel="nofollow">WikiScanner</a> [caltech.edu] reveals the NPG have been busy vandalising Wikipedia themselves!</p><p>There's juvenile vandalism from them <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve\_Chen\_(YouTube)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=301376954" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve\_Chen\_(YouTube)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=301377059" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>They have also posted notices on pages that use low resolution images of their owned paintings, obscuring the encyclopedic content. This type of vandalism was done to at least articles related to images of the resolution <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catherine\_of\_Braganza&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=61005705" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">494x600</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catherine\_of\_Braganza&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=63238737" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">494x600</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth\_I\_of\_England&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=63239630" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">500x726</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catherine\_of\_Braganza&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=63577588" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">494x600</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William\_Shakespeare&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=63577161" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">?</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bronte\_sisters.jpg&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=63577375" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">322x250</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind\_Franklin&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=63578539" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">137x200</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William\_Shakespeare&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=63753638" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">?</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary\_Wollstonecraft&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=83608386" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">203x255</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William\_Herschel&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=90636062" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">408x562</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>So much for the low resolution image agreement!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The WikiScanner [ caltech.edu ] reveals the NPG have been busy vandalising Wikipedia themselves ! There 's juvenile vandalism from them here [ wikipedia.org ] and here [ wikipedia.org ] .They have also posted notices on pages that use low resolution images of their owned paintings , obscuring the encyclopedic content .
This type of vandalism was done to at least articles related to images of the resolution 494x600 [ wikipedia.org ] , 494x600 [ wikipedia.org ] , 500x726 [ wikipedia.org ] , 494x600 [ wikipedia.org ] , ?
[ wikipedia.org ] , 322x250 [ wikipedia.org ] , 137x200 [ wikipedia.org ] , ?
[ wikipedia.org ] , 203x255 [ wikipedia.org ] and 408x562 [ wikipedia.org ] .So much for the low resolution image agreement !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The WikiScanner [caltech.edu] reveals the NPG have been busy vandalising Wikipedia themselves!There's juvenile vandalism from them here [wikipedia.org] and here [wikipedia.org].They have also posted notices on pages that use low resolution images of their owned paintings, obscuring the encyclopedic content.
This type of vandalism was done to at least articles related to images of the resolution 494x600 [wikipedia.org], 494x600 [wikipedia.org], 500x726 [wikipedia.org], 494x600 [wikipedia.org], ?
[wikipedia.org], 322x250 [wikipedia.org], 137x200 [wikipedia.org], ?
[wikipedia.org], 203x255 [wikipedia.org] and 408x562 [wikipedia.org].So much for the low resolution image agreement!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660913</id>
	<title>Re:"the NPG's taxpayer-funded mission"</title>
	<author>tvjunky</author>
	<datestamp>1247333160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Given they control their own reproductions of the pictures, would it be acceptable for them to deny visitors the right to take their own photographs? I think not.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.npg.org.uk/about/FAQ/do-you-allow-photography-in-the-gallery.php" title="npg.org.uk" rel="nofollow">They think otherwise</a> [npg.org.uk]<br>I think that, as a government funded institution, it should be their mission to spread the art that they exhibit and do everything they can to spark people's interest in it. Yet art and education may not be their main concern if they continue to restrict access to these paintings as they do right now. And that, regardless of the copyright issue, is morally wrong - at least in my opinion. What is happening here ist that government money is used against the people instead of for them, which I find quite outrageous.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given they control their own reproductions of the pictures , would it be acceptable for them to deny visitors the right to take their own photographs ?
I think not .
They think otherwise [ npg.org.uk ] I think that , as a government funded institution , it should be their mission to spread the art that they exhibit and do everything they can to spark people 's interest in it .
Yet art and education may not be their main concern if they continue to restrict access to these paintings as they do right now .
And that , regardless of the copyright issue , is morally wrong - at least in my opinion .
What is happening here ist that government money is used against the people instead of for them , which I find quite outrageous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given they control their own reproductions of the pictures, would it be acceptable for them to deny visitors the right to take their own photographs?
I think not.
They think otherwise [npg.org.uk]I think that, as a government funded institution, it should be their mission to spread the art that they exhibit and do everything they can to spark people's interest in it.
Yet art and education may not be their main concern if they continue to restrict access to these paintings as they do right now.
And that, regardless of the copyright issue, is morally wrong - at least in my opinion.
What is happening here ist that government money is used against the people instead of for them, which I find quite outrageous.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660389</id>
	<title>Let's read what they say.</title>
	<author>hoarier</author>
	<datestamp>1247330040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>"claims of copyright over works hundreds of years old"</em> <br> <br>No, certainly not. Instead, claims of copyright over <em>"original photographs taken within the last thirty years"</em>.<br> <br>And the letter is clear. Add fear if you like, but let's skip the uncertainty and doubt: there's no need to call anyone first thing Monday to "establish just what they think they're doing"; whether or not you or I agree with it, what they're doing is clearly explained <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dcoetzee/NPG\_legal\_threat" title="wikimedia.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [wikimedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" claims of copyright over works hundreds of years old " No , certainly not .
Instead , claims of copyright over " original photographs taken within the last thirty years " .
And the letter is clear .
Add fear if you like , but let 's skip the uncertainty and doubt : there 's no need to call anyone first thing Monday to " establish just what they think they 're doing " ; whether or not you or I agree with it , what they 're doing is clearly explained here [ wikimedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "claims of copyright over works hundreds of years old"  No, certainly not.
Instead, claims of copyright over "original photographs taken within the last thirty years".
And the letter is clear.
Add fear if you like, but let's skip the uncertainty and doubt: there's no need to call anyone first thing Monday to "establish just what they think they're doing"; whether or not you or I agree with it, what they're doing is clearly explained here [wikimedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28679303</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247510040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the "technical measures" were protecting a "work" that is not even under copyright in the US, then in the US, that program is NOT a copyright protection technology. DMCA does not apply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the " technical measures " were protecting a " work " that is not even under copyright in the US , then in the US , that program is NOT a copyright protection technology .
DMCA does not apply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the "technical measures" were protecting a "work" that is not even under copyright in the US, then in the US, that program is NOT a copyright protection technology.
DMCA does not apply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28668809</id>
	<title>Re:NPG web site makes it clear</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1247428320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they are free to not show those images to people accessing from other countries, if they're really so worried.</p><p><i>As a public body, they have the responsibility to carry out their mandate to the British people, while not costing those same people more than is necessary to do so.</i></p><p>As a UK citizen who pays their taxes, I object to them trying to claim ownership on images that should belong in the public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they are free to not show those images to people accessing from other countries , if they 're really so worried.As a public body , they have the responsibility to carry out their mandate to the British people , while not costing those same people more than is necessary to do so.As a UK citizen who pays their taxes , I object to them trying to claim ownership on images that should belong in the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they are free to not show those images to people accessing from other countries, if they're really so worried.As a public body, they have the responsibility to carry out their mandate to the British people, while not costing those same people more than is necessary to do so.As a UK citizen who pays their taxes, I object to them trying to claim ownership on images that should belong in the public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28673985</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247483460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But if you document the whole process, then of course that document would be copyrightable (at least where I live, in Germany). To be a little more specific, in german law (as far as I remember), any work that requires significant amount of work is copyrightable. This explictily includes e.g. a collection of weblinks, or a telephone book</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But if you document the whole process , then of course that document would be copyrightable ( at least where I live , in Germany ) .
To be a little more specific , in german law ( as far as I remember ) , any work that requires significant amount of work is copyrightable .
This explictily includes e.g .
a collection of weblinks , or a telephone book</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if you document the whole process, then of course that document would be copyrightable (at least where I live, in Germany).
To be a little more specific, in german law (as far as I remember), any work that requires significant amount of work is copyrightable.
This explictily includes e.g.
a collection of weblinks, or a telephone book</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28662065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660557</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247331000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For several years, the National Portrait Gallery has claimed copyright over public domain images in their possession. Wikimedia has ignored these claims, occasionally laughing.</p></div></blockquote><p>Largely on the basis of Wikimedia's implicit policy "we don't give a rat about copyright, even though we pretend to do so".<br>
&nbsp; <br>Seriously, I've seen "free use justifications" that amount to "we know this image is copyrighted, but we really don't care.  There's no free image available, so we are going to use the protected one anyhow".<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>I'll be calling them first thing Monday (in my capacity as "just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics") to establish just what they think they're doing here.</p></div></blockquote><p>At least be honest and admit your capacity is "bystander and Wikimedia cheerleader".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For several years , the National Portrait Gallery has claimed copyright over public domain images in their possession .
Wikimedia has ignored these claims , occasionally laughing.Largely on the basis of Wikimedia 's implicit policy " we do n't give a rat about copyright , even though we pretend to do so " .
  Seriously , I 've seen " free use justifications " that amount to " we know this image is copyrighted , but we really do n't care .
There 's no free image available , so we are going to use the protected one anyhow " .
    I 'll be calling them first thing Monday ( in my capacity as " just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics " ) to establish just what they think they 're doing here.At least be honest and admit your capacity is " bystander and Wikimedia cheerleader " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For several years, the National Portrait Gallery has claimed copyright over public domain images in their possession.
Wikimedia has ignored these claims, occasionally laughing.Largely on the basis of Wikimedia's implicit policy "we don't give a rat about copyright, even though we pretend to do so".
  Seriously, I've seen "free use justifications" that amount to "we know this image is copyrighted, but we really don't care.
There's no free image available, so we are going to use the protected one anyhow".
  
  I'll be calling them first thing Monday (in my capacity as "just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics") to establish just what they think they're doing here.At least be honest and admit your capacity is "bystander and Wikimedia cheerleader".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661143</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>42forty-two42</author>
	<datestamp>1247334660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the work isn't a copyright work, then wouldn't this not apply?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the work is n't a copyright work , then would n't this not apply ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the work isn't a copyright work, then wouldn't this not apply?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660505</id>
	<title>Re:"the NPG's taxpayer-funded mission"</title>
	<author>thedj\_sd</author>
	<datestamp>1247330640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed. This is not really a case of legal copyfraud, it's more about moral copyfraud. They might have the right to claim and exert their copyright on these photos perhaps, but in the light of their mission, it is a form of moral copyfraud, to do so, when the photos are of art works that are in the Public Domain.

I advise people to read:
<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/26/copyfraud/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/26/copyfraud/</a> [theregister.co.uk]
and
<a href="http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/02/more-attacks-on-institutional-copyfraud.html" title="librarylaw.com" rel="nofollow">http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/02/more-attacks-on-institutional-copyfraud.html</a> [librarylaw.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
This is not really a case of legal copyfraud , it 's more about moral copyfraud .
They might have the right to claim and exert their copyright on these photos perhaps , but in the light of their mission , it is a form of moral copyfraud , to do so , when the photos are of art works that are in the Public Domain .
I advise people to read : http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/26/copyfraud/ [ theregister.co.uk ] and http : //blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/02/more-attacks-on-institutional-copyfraud.html [ librarylaw.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
This is not really a case of legal copyfraud, it's more about moral copyfraud.
They might have the right to claim and exert their copyright on these photos perhaps, but in the light of their mission, it is a form of moral copyfraud, to do so, when the photos are of art works that are in the Public Domain.
I advise people to read:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/26/copyfraud/ [theregister.co.uk]
and
http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/02/more-attacks-on-institutional-copyfraud.html [librarylaw.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660473</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a sec- he took the photos or someone else?</title>
	<author>gabebear</author>
	<datestamp>1247330460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the US, the paintings and the copies are in the public domain. Under US law, a copy of a work gets the same rights as the original. These pictures are purely copies, they have nothing new added to them which would qualify them as copyrightable works in the US.
<br> <br>
Everything happened within the US:
<ul> <li>The user is a US citizen</li><li>The Wikipedia servers are in the US</li><li>The NPG galleries were accessed from the US</li></ul><p>
It would be nearly impossible for the NPG to drag the user to the UK to charge him under UK copyright law and the Wikipedia Foundation hasn't broken any laws at all.<br> <br>This letter was an empty threat, unless the user wants to travel within the UK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US , the paintings and the copies are in the public domain .
Under US law , a copy of a work gets the same rights as the original .
These pictures are purely copies , they have nothing new added to them which would qualify them as copyrightable works in the US .
Everything happened within the US : The user is a US citizenThe Wikipedia servers are in the USThe NPG galleries were accessed from the US It would be nearly impossible for the NPG to drag the user to the UK to charge him under UK copyright law and the Wikipedia Foundation has n't broken any laws at all .
This letter was an empty threat , unless the user wants to travel within the UK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US, the paintings and the copies are in the public domain.
Under US law, a copy of a work gets the same rights as the original.
These pictures are purely copies, they have nothing new added to them which would qualify them as copyrightable works in the US.
Everything happened within the US:
 The user is a US citizenThe Wikipedia servers are in the USThe NPG galleries were accessed from the US
It would be nearly impossible for the NPG to drag the user to the UK to charge him under UK copyright law and the Wikipedia Foundation hasn't broken any laws at all.
This letter was an empty threat, unless the user wants to travel within the UK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28663205</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>KingMotley</author>
	<datestamp>1247307000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None of which you quoted applies, since under US law, the pictures are not copyrightable.  No copyright material, no circumvention.</p><p>s.296ZF(1) only applies to copyrighted material.<br>s.296ZA(1) only applies to copyrighted material.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None of which you quoted applies , since under US law , the pictures are not copyrightable .
No copyright material , no circumvention.s.296ZF ( 1 ) only applies to copyrighted material.s.296ZA ( 1 ) only applies to copyrighted material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of which you quoted applies, since under US law, the pictures are not copyrightable.
No copyright material, no circumvention.s.296ZF(1) only applies to copyrighted material.s.296ZA(1) only applies to copyrighted material.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28662065</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1247341740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Making a high resolution reproduction of a work of art requires special equipment and skills, so I really think it's fair enough if that's copyright - somebody has invested money, skills and effort in making the reproduction be as good as possible.</p> </div><p>It takes a lot of special equipment and skills to take apart a 1957 Chevy completely, and then put it back together.  Somebody has invested money, skills, and effort into putting it back together as completely as possible.  Is the resulting work copyrightable?  Of course not.  Copyright law rewards creative works, not "hard work" or investment of time and labor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Making a high resolution reproduction of a work of art requires special equipment and skills , so I really think it 's fair enough if that 's copyright - somebody has invested money , skills and effort in making the reproduction be as good as possible .
It takes a lot of special equipment and skills to take apart a 1957 Chevy completely , and then put it back together .
Somebody has invested money , skills , and effort into putting it back together as completely as possible .
Is the resulting work copyrightable ?
Of course not .
Copyright law rewards creative works , not " hard work " or investment of time and labor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making a high resolution reproduction of a work of art requires special equipment and skills, so I really think it's fair enough if that's copyright - somebody has invested money, skills and effort in making the reproduction be as good as possible.
It takes a lot of special equipment and skills to take apart a 1957 Chevy completely, and then put it back together.
Somebody has invested money, skills, and effort into putting it back together as completely as possible.
Is the resulting work copyrightable?
Of course not.
Copyright law rewards creative works, not "hard work" or investment of time and labor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28681933</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247476680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In sections 296ZA to 296ZE, "technological measures" are any technology, device or component which is designed, in the normal course of its operation, to protect a copyright work other than a computer program." -- except the photos he copied weren't protected by copyright (in the US, at least). And thus, your argument that he violated the DMCA disappears.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In sections 296ZA to 296ZE , " technological measures " are any technology , device or component which is designed , in the normal course of its operation , to protect a copyright work other than a computer program .
" -- except the photos he copied were n't protected by copyright ( in the US , at least ) .
And thus , your argument that he violated the DMCA disappears .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In sections 296ZA to 296ZE, "technological measures" are any technology, device or component which is designed, in the normal course of its operation, to protect a copyright work other than a computer program.
" -- except the photos he copied weren't protected by copyright (in the US, at least).
And thus, your argument that he violated the DMCA disappears.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659911</id>
	<title>NPG web site makes it clear</title>
	<author>Bazman</author>
	<datestamp>1247326680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.npg.org.uk/business/images/use-on-web.php" title="npg.org.uk">http://www.npg.org.uk/business/images/use-on-web.php</a> [npg.org.uk]</p><p>----</p><p>Using our images on websites</p><p>Do the right thing!</p><p>You need permission to use our images on your website.</p><p>Here's how to apply (it's easy):</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. Tell us which images you would like to use (e.g. NPG 1, William Shakespeare).<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. Tell us how you would like to feature the image, and how long for.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3. Tell is whether your website is personal, academic, commercial or corporate.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4. Provide us with the URL and your postal address.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 5. Let us know who is sponsoring the site (i.e. who pays the bills!).</p><p>Why not send your application now, by e-mail to rightsandimages@npg.org.uk.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * We will then reply, to let you know if permission is available.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * We will also let you know how much it is going to cost.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * If you confirm you order in writing and provide full payment, we will fulfil your order as quickly as possible and supply the images with a licence to use them in your project.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * The specific terms of the licence are set out in the invoice (you'll need to get further permission if you want to use the images in any other way) while the general terms are spelt out carefully in our terms &amp; conditions.</p><p>For a guide to our rates, or if you would like more details before applying, download our standard pdf website information pack comprising</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * an introduction<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * an application form<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * a table of current rates<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * our full terms &amp; conditions</p><p>----</p><p>
&nbsp; Maybe I'll get sued for copying their FAQ text now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.npg.org.uk/business/images/use-on-web.php [ npg.org.uk ] ----Using our images on websitesDo the right thing ! You need permission to use our images on your website.Here 's how to apply ( it 's easy ) :       1 .
Tell us which images you would like to use ( e.g .
NPG 1 , William Shakespeare ) .
      2 .
Tell us how you would like to feature the image , and how long for .
      3 .
Tell is whether your website is personal , academic , commercial or corporate .
      4 .
Provide us with the URL and your postal address .
      5 .
Let us know who is sponsoring the site ( i.e .
who pays the bills !
) .Why not send your application now , by e-mail to rightsandimages @ npg.org.uk .
        * We will then reply , to let you know if permission is available .
        * We will also let you know how much it is going to cost .
        * If you confirm you order in writing and provide full payment , we will fulfil your order as quickly as possible and supply the images with a licence to use them in your project .
        * The specific terms of the licence are set out in the invoice ( you 'll need to get further permission if you want to use the images in any other way ) while the general terms are spelt out carefully in our terms &amp; conditions.For a guide to our rates , or if you would like more details before applying , download our standard pdf website information pack comprising         * an introduction         * an application form         * a table of current rates         * our full terms &amp; conditions----   Maybe I 'll get sued for copying their FAQ text now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.npg.org.uk/business/images/use-on-web.php [npg.org.uk]----Using our images on websitesDo the right thing!You need permission to use our images on your website.Here's how to apply (it's easy):
      1.
Tell us which images you would like to use (e.g.
NPG 1, William Shakespeare).
      2.
Tell us how you would like to feature the image, and how long for.
      3.
Tell is whether your website is personal, academic, commercial or corporate.
      4.
Provide us with the URL and your postal address.
      5.
Let us know who is sponsoring the site (i.e.
who pays the bills!
).Why not send your application now, by e-mail to rightsandimages@npg.org.uk.
        * We will then reply, to let you know if permission is available.
        * We will also let you know how much it is going to cost.
        * If you confirm you order in writing and provide full payment, we will fulfil your order as quickly as possible and supply the images with a licence to use them in your project.
        * The specific terms of the licence are set out in the invoice (you'll need to get further permission if you want to use the images in any other way) while the general terms are spelt out carefully in our terms &amp; conditions.For a guide to our rates, or if you would like more details before applying, download our standard pdf website information pack comprising
        * an introduction
        * an application form
        * a table of current rates
        * our full terms &amp; conditions----
  Maybe I'll get sued for copying their FAQ text now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28662823</id>
	<title>Re:NPG web site makes it clear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247303940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here's how to apply (it's easy):<br>1. Tell us which images you would like to use (e.g. NPG 1, William Shakespeare).</p></div><p>All of them.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2. Tell us how you would like to feature the image, and how long for.</p></div><p>On a public website, free for everyone to see and copy. Forever.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3. Tell is whether your website is personal, academic, commercial or corporate.</p></div><p>The website is public. The viewer could be all of the above, or something else entirely.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>4. Provide us with the URL and your postal address.</p></div><p>wikipedia.org</p><p><div class="quote"><p>5. Let us know who is sponsoring the site (i.e. who pays the bills!).</p></div><p>maybe a list of (anonymous) donations and a list of IP's of volunteering editors would be sufficient?</p><p>See, these questions are very easy to answer.<br>The problem are things like "If you confirm you order in writing and provide full payment" and "our full terms &amp; conditions" that follow these simple questions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's how to apply ( it 's easy ) : 1 .
Tell us which images you would like to use ( e.g .
NPG 1 , William Shakespeare ) .All of them.2 .
Tell us how you would like to feature the image , and how long for.On a public website , free for everyone to see and copy .
Forever.3. Tell is whether your website is personal , academic , commercial or corporate.The website is public .
The viewer could be all of the above , or something else entirely.4 .
Provide us with the URL and your postal address.wikipedia.org5 .
Let us know who is sponsoring the site ( i.e .
who pays the bills !
) .maybe a list of ( anonymous ) donations and a list of IP 's of volunteering editors would be sufficient ? See , these questions are very easy to answer.The problem are things like " If you confirm you order in writing and provide full payment " and " our full terms &amp; conditions " that follow these simple questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's how to apply (it's easy):1.
Tell us which images you would like to use (e.g.
NPG 1, William Shakespeare).All of them.2.
Tell us how you would like to feature the image, and how long for.On a public website, free for everyone to see and copy.
Forever.3. Tell is whether your website is personal, academic, commercial or corporate.The website is public.
The viewer could be all of the above, or something else entirely.4.
Provide us with the URL and your postal address.wikipedia.org5.
Let us know who is sponsoring the site (i.e.
who pays the bills!
).maybe a list of (anonymous) donations and a list of IP's of volunteering editors would be sufficient?See, these questions are very easy to answer.The problem are things like "If you confirm you order in writing and provide full payment" and "our full terms &amp; conditions" that follow these simple questions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28663449</id>
	<title>Re:These plaintiffs are being very reasonable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247308680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"They've being completely reasonable: they explain the law, they ask for (almost entirely) reasonable steps to avoid the lawsuit, and they offer to cooperate in providing \_low resolution\_ images for the use of Wikimedia."</i> </p><p>Um... No.  They're asserting their interpretation of the law is prima facie fact, and there is no other possible interpretation of UK law.  It is by no means clear that is so, nor is it clear a UK judge would agree with them.</p><p>They acknowledge this glancingly:</p><p><i>"...in the UK, whilst the precise circumstances that gave rise to the Bridgeman v. Corel litigation have never been the subject matter of a claim decided before the UK Courts..."</i> </p><p>But they then go on to say, "...practicing lawyers and legal academics alike generally agree that under a UK law analysis the judgment in Bridgeman v. Corel is wrong and that copyright can subsist in a photograph of a painting."</p><p>Which is to say, they paid a group of practicing lawyers and legal academics, who earned their checks by agreeing.</p><p>Later:</p><p><i>"However, our client is very keen to avoid commencing proceedings against you if this can be avoided."</i> </p><p>Imaginary edited out follow-up text:</p><p><i>"...because our client is scared to death of the consequences to museums throughout the UK should this go to trial and is decided against them.  Let alone our client realizes they'd look Scrooge-like, and would lose in the court of public opinion, even if they 'won' a Pyrrhic victory on legal basis. Therefore, we decided to try to extort you, first. Please be scared and don't call our bluff.  Please."</i> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" They 've being completely reasonable : they explain the law , they ask for ( almost entirely ) reasonable steps to avoid the lawsuit , and they offer to cooperate in providing \ _low resolution \ _ images for the use of Wikimedia .
" Um... No. They 're asserting their interpretation of the law is prima facie fact , and there is no other possible interpretation of UK law .
It is by no means clear that is so , nor is it clear a UK judge would agree with them.They acknowledge this glancingly : " ...in the UK , whilst the precise circumstances that gave rise to the Bridgeman v. Corel litigation have never been the subject matter of a claim decided before the UK Courts... " But they then go on to say , " ...practicing lawyers and legal academics alike generally agree that under a UK law analysis the judgment in Bridgeman v. Corel is wrong and that copyright can subsist in a photograph of a painting .
" Which is to say , they paid a group of practicing lawyers and legal academics , who earned their checks by agreeing.Later : " However , our client is very keen to avoid commencing proceedings against you if this can be avoided .
" Imaginary edited out follow-up text : " ...because our client is scared to death of the consequences to museums throughout the UK should this go to trial and is decided against them .
Let alone our client realizes they 'd look Scrooge-like , and would lose in the court of public opinion , even if they 'won ' a Pyrrhic victory on legal basis .
Therefore , we decided to try to extort you , first .
Please be scared and do n't call our bluff .
Please. "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They've being completely reasonable: they explain the law, they ask for (almost entirely) reasonable steps to avoid the lawsuit, and they offer to cooperate in providing \_low resolution\_ images for the use of Wikimedia.
" Um... No.  They're asserting their interpretation of the law is prima facie fact, and there is no other possible interpretation of UK law.
It is by no means clear that is so, nor is it clear a UK judge would agree with them.They acknowledge this glancingly:"...in the UK, whilst the precise circumstances that gave rise to the Bridgeman v. Corel litigation have never been the subject matter of a claim decided before the UK Courts..." But they then go on to say, "...practicing lawyers and legal academics alike generally agree that under a UK law analysis the judgment in Bridgeman v. Corel is wrong and that copyright can subsist in a photograph of a painting.
"Which is to say, they paid a group of practicing lawyers and legal academics, who earned their checks by agreeing.Later:"However, our client is very keen to avoid commencing proceedings against you if this can be avoided.
" Imaginary edited out follow-up text:"...because our client is scared to death of the consequences to museums throughout the UK should this go to trial and is decided against them.
Let alone our client realizes they'd look Scrooge-like, and would lose in the court of public opinion, even if they 'won' a Pyrrhic victory on legal basis.
Therefore, we decided to try to extort you, first.
Please be scared and don't call our bluff.
Please." </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660869</id>
	<title>Re:I use an IR camera as well as VIS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247332860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I'm curious... got any examples online that I could look at, of IR vs VIS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I 'm curious... got any examples online that I could look at , of IR vs VIS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I'm curious... got any examples online that I could look at, of IR vs VIS?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28668245</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247422620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From <a href="http://www.zoomify.com/support.htm" title="zoomify.com" rel="nofollow">Zoomify's website</a> [zoomify.com]:<br><i>It is important to note, however, that no image presented on the web can be completely protected - if you can see an image, the data is on your computer and it can be retrieved by someone sufficiently determined. For this reason, we provide Zoomify as a viewing solution and not an image security system.</i></p><p>The program that they are claiming to be their  "effective technological measure" is not marketed or intended as such, in fact it is specifically denounced by its makers as a terrible security measure.</p><p>That was the only serious part of their claims, as the US has similar regulations in the DMCA.</p><p>From what I can tell, there are no US laws that this person is breaking whatsoever, and the only UK law he is (debateably) breaking (because of a lack of UK precedent) is the copyright on a reproduction of a public-domain painting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From Zoomify 's website [ zoomify.com ] : It is important to note , however , that no image presented on the web can be completely protected - if you can see an image , the data is on your computer and it can be retrieved by someone sufficiently determined .
For this reason , we provide Zoomify as a viewing solution and not an image security system.The program that they are claiming to be their " effective technological measure " is not marketed or intended as such , in fact it is specifically denounced by its makers as a terrible security measure.That was the only serious part of their claims , as the US has similar regulations in the DMCA.From what I can tell , there are no US laws that this person is breaking whatsoever , and the only UK law he is ( debateably ) breaking ( because of a lack of UK precedent ) is the copyright on a reproduction of a public-domain painting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Zoomify's website [zoomify.com]:It is important to note, however, that no image presented on the web can be completely protected - if you can see an image, the data is on your computer and it can be retrieved by someone sufficiently determined.
For this reason, we provide Zoomify as a viewing solution and not an image security system.The program that they are claiming to be their  "effective technological measure" is not marketed or intended as such, in fact it is specifically denounced by its makers as a terrible security measure.That was the only serious part of their claims, as the US has similar regulations in the DMCA.From what I can tell, there are no US laws that this person is breaking whatsoever, and the only UK law he is (debateably) breaking (because of a lack of UK precedent) is the copyright on a reproduction of a public-domain painting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661807</id>
	<title>Re:NPG web site makes it clear</title>
	<author>m.ducharme</author>
	<datestamp>1247339820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2) The National Portrait Gallery is a public body who receive public funds on the basis that they display and educate a many people as possible about the artworks they have.</p> </div><p>They have no obligation to spend money (or forgo revenue) for non-residents of the UK. As a public body, they have the responsibility to carry out their mandate to the British people, while not costing those same people more than is necessary to do so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 ) The National Portrait Gallery is a public body who receive public funds on the basis that they display and educate a many people as possible about the artworks they have .
They have no obligation to spend money ( or forgo revenue ) for non-residents of the UK .
As a public body , they have the responsibility to carry out their mandate to the British people , while not costing those same people more than is necessary to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2) The National Portrait Gallery is a public body who receive public funds on the basis that they display and educate a many people as possible about the artworks they have.
They have no obligation to spend money (or forgo revenue) for non-residents of the UK.
As a public body, they have the responsibility to carry out their mandate to the British people, while not costing those same people more than is necessary to do so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660417</id>
	<title>I got one of these letters in 2004.</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1247330280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got one of these letters in 2004:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>Dear Sir,<br> <br>We notice you have an image of Isaac Newton on your website www.lightandmatter.com/ , which is of a portrait in the<br> collection of the National Portrait Gallery, London (NPG 2881).<br> <br>As we do not appear to have licensed a copy of this portrait for use on your website, we wondered whether you would<br>let us know the source from which you obtained the reproduction.<br> <br>Although there may no longer be copyright in original portraits from this period, there is copyright in recently taken<br>photographs, or scans such as those that appear on our website.Unauthorised reproduction of such photographs or scans<br>may be an infringement of copyright law.<br> <br>I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter.<br> <br>Yours sincerely,<br> <br>Bernard Horrocks<br>Copyright Officer<br>National Portrait GallerySt Martin's PlaceLondon WC2H OHE</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>
I'm in the U.S., and the server is in the U.S. IIRC, I sent them back an email with a link to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman\_Art\_Library\_Ltd.\_v.\_Corel\_Corporation" title="wikipedia.org">this article</a> [wikipedia.org] on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., explaining that their copyright wasn't legally valid in the U.S. Never heard from them again.
</p><p>
The letter quoted in TFA does sound a lot more aggressive than what I received. Possibly they're more interested in pursuing this case since the number of images is large, and WP has a high public profile. It would be interesting to hear from someone with some legal expertise on whether there would be any practical effect on WP or Dcoetzee if they just ignored the threat and allowed a default judgment to be entered against Dcoetzee in the UK. If Dcoetzee or Jimmy Wales take a vacation in Scotland, do jackbooted thugs meet them at the airport terminal and take them away to Euro-Copyright Prison, where they'll have to spend a 20-year sentence wearing black turtlenecks and listening to French pop music?
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got one of these letters in 2004 : Dear Sir , We notice you have an image of Isaac Newton on your website www.lightandmatter.com/ , which is of a portrait in the collection of the National Portrait Gallery , London ( NPG 2881 ) .
As we do not appear to have licensed a copy of this portrait for use on your website , we wondered whether you wouldlet us know the source from which you obtained the reproduction .
Although there may no longer be copyright in original portraits from this period , there is copyright in recently takenphotographs , or scans such as those that appear on our website.Unauthorised reproduction of such photographs or scansmay be an infringement of copyright law .
I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter .
Yours sincerely , Bernard HorrocksCopyright OfficerNational Portrait GallerySt Martin 's PlaceLondon WC2H OHE I 'm in the U.S. , and the server is in the U.S. IIRC , I sent them back an email with a link to this article [ wikipedia.org ] on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. , explaining that their copyright was n't legally valid in the U.S. Never heard from them again .
The letter quoted in TFA does sound a lot more aggressive than what I received .
Possibly they 're more interested in pursuing this case since the number of images is large , and WP has a high public profile .
It would be interesting to hear from someone with some legal expertise on whether there would be any practical effect on WP or Dcoetzee if they just ignored the threat and allowed a default judgment to be entered against Dcoetzee in the UK .
If Dcoetzee or Jimmy Wales take a vacation in Scotland , do jackbooted thugs meet them at the airport terminal and take them away to Euro-Copyright Prison , where they 'll have to spend a 20-year sentence wearing black turtlenecks and listening to French pop music ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got one of these letters in 2004: Dear Sir, We notice you have an image of Isaac Newton on your website www.lightandmatter.com/ , which is of a portrait in the collection of the National Portrait Gallery, London (NPG 2881).
As we do not appear to have licensed a copy of this portrait for use on your website, we wondered whether you wouldlet us know the source from which you obtained the reproduction.
Although there may no longer be copyright in original portraits from this period, there is copyright in recently takenphotographs, or scans such as those that appear on our website.Unauthorised reproduction of such photographs or scansmay be an infringement of copyright law.
I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter.
Yours sincerely, Bernard HorrocksCopyright OfficerNational Portrait GallerySt Martin's PlaceLondon WC2H OHE 
I'm in the U.S., and the server is in the U.S. IIRC, I sent them back an email with a link to this article [wikipedia.org] on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., explaining that their copyright wasn't legally valid in the U.S. Never heard from them again.
The letter quoted in TFA does sound a lot more aggressive than what I received.
Possibly they're more interested in pursuing this case since the number of images is large, and WP has a high public profile.
It would be interesting to hear from someone with some legal expertise on whether there would be any practical effect on WP or Dcoetzee if they just ignored the threat and allowed a default judgment to be entered against Dcoetzee in the UK.
If Dcoetzee or Jimmy Wales take a vacation in Scotland, do jackbooted thugs meet them at the airport terminal and take them away to Euro-Copyright Prison, where they'll have to spend a 20-year sentence wearing black turtlenecks and listening to French pop music?

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661993</id>
	<title>Re:He could have....</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1247341320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These images are public domain in the US, where he and Wikipedia reside. It is ridiculous to say they need to ask permission from some control freak in another part of the world in order to exercise their rights. NPG has no right to control the images. Wikipedia kept the Muhammad images up when a bunch of whiny muslims came to complain, and they'll keep these images up even when a bunch of whiny brits complain.</p><p>The NPG has needlessly brought conflict to itself and damaged its own reputation by being a bunch of hypocrite weenies.</p><p>NPG is a very inconsistent, two-faced organization.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These images are public domain in the US , where he and Wikipedia reside .
It is ridiculous to say they need to ask permission from some control freak in another part of the world in order to exercise their rights .
NPG has no right to control the images .
Wikipedia kept the Muhammad images up when a bunch of whiny muslims came to complain , and they 'll keep these images up even when a bunch of whiny brits complain.The NPG has needlessly brought conflict to itself and damaged its own reputation by being a bunch of hypocrite weenies.NPG is a very inconsistent , two-faced organization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These images are public domain in the US, where he and Wikipedia reside.
It is ridiculous to say they need to ask permission from some control freak in another part of the world in order to exercise their rights.
NPG has no right to control the images.
Wikipedia kept the Muhammad images up when a bunch of whiny muslims came to complain, and they'll keep these images up even when a bunch of whiny brits complain.The NPG has needlessly brought conflict to itself and damaged its own reputation by being a bunch of hypocrite weenies.NPG is a very inconsistent, two-faced organization.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659827</id>
	<title>Re:The law is on London's side</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247326200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The paintings may be in the public domain, but the photographs are copyright to the<br>&gt; photographer.</p><p>Under UK law.  As the letter from the lawyer admits, they are probably not protected by copyright at all in the US.  Unfortunately, the parties appear to be residents of the UK.  Where are the Wikipedia servers on which the photos now reside located?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The paintings may be in the public domain , but the photographs are copyright to the &gt; photographer.Under UK law .
As the letter from the lawyer admits , they are probably not protected by copyright at all in the US .
Unfortunately , the parties appear to be residents of the UK .
Where are the Wikipedia servers on which the photos now reside located ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The paintings may be in the public domain, but the photographs are copyright to the&gt; photographer.Under UK law.
As the letter from the lawyer admits, they are probably not protected by copyright at all in the US.
Unfortunately, the parties appear to be residents of the UK.
Where are the Wikipedia servers on which the photos now reside located?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660881</id>
	<title>Re:"the NPG's taxpayer-funded mission"</title>
	<author>the donner party</author>
	<datestamp>1247332980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really have a hard time understanding this idea that investing a lot of effort into making a good reproduction should give the copier rights over the work.  Why should the legal status of the end result depend on how it was created?</p><p>In all fields of endeavour, what takes little effort for one person can take enormous effort for another, and can even be entirely out of the reach of others of lesser skill, yet the end results are treated the same, legally.  And surely the mere presence of effort cannot justify protection, unless the end result is something that is worthy of protection in itself?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really have a hard time understanding this idea that investing a lot of effort into making a good reproduction should give the copier rights over the work .
Why should the legal status of the end result depend on how it was created ? In all fields of endeavour , what takes little effort for one person can take enormous effort for another , and can even be entirely out of the reach of others of lesser skill , yet the end results are treated the same , legally .
And surely the mere presence of effort can not justify protection , unless the end result is something that is worthy of protection in itself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really have a hard time understanding this idea that investing a lot of effort into making a good reproduction should give the copier rights over the work.
Why should the legal status of the end result depend on how it was created?In all fields of endeavour, what takes little effort for one person can take enormous effort for another, and can even be entirely out of the reach of others of lesser skill, yet the end results are treated the same, legally.
And surely the mere presence of effort cannot justify protection, unless the end result is something that is worthy of protection in itself?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28806907</id>
	<title>Anonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1248449940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is that if the US user is found guilty in the UK, he may get arrested immediately if he ever enters the UK. So what if he has to go on a business trip to the UK sometime?<br>Point is, it doesn't matter if he's a US citizen, he can still be tried and found guilty in the UK and they may still lock him up if he ever sets foot on UK soil.</p><p>neat, huh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is that if the US user is found guilty in the UK , he may get arrested immediately if he ever enters the UK .
So what if he has to go on a business trip to the UK sometime ? Point is , it does n't matter if he 's a US citizen , he can still be tried and found guilty in the UK and they may still lock him up if he ever sets foot on UK soil.neat , huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is that if the US user is found guilty in the UK, he may get arrested immediately if he ever enters the UK.
So what if he has to go on a business trip to the UK sometime?Point is, it doesn't matter if he's a US citizen, he can still be tried and found guilty in the UK and they may still lock him up if he ever sets foot on UK soil.neat, huh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661615</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247338200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reads</p><p>(a) effective technological measures have been applied to a \_copyright\_ work other than a computer program; and</p><p>not</p><p>(a) effective technological measures have been applied to a \_public domain\_ work other than a computer program; and</p><p>So it might not apply here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reads ( a ) effective technological measures have been applied to a \ _copyright \ _ work other than a computer program ; andnot ( a ) effective technological measures have been applied to a \ _public domain \ _ work other than a computer program ; andSo it might not apply here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reads(a) effective technological measures have been applied to a \_copyright\_ work other than a computer program; andnot(a) effective technological measures have been applied to a \_public domain\_ work other than a computer program; andSo it might not apply here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28666725</id>
	<title>What circumvention?</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1247404680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Circumventing copy protection?</p></div><p>Citation needed that such circumvention was actually performed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Circumventing copy protection ? Citation needed that such circumvention was actually performed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Circumventing copy protection?Citation needed that such circumvention was actually performed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659971</id>
	<title>I use an IR camera as well as VIS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247327100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a modified IR camera I use that I built to photograph artwork- it's amazing what you can sometimes see 'underneath' the paints the artist chose.</p><p>In one gallery in Germany I saw a work of art in IR that had been severely damaged and retouched- it was clearly evident in the IR photograph but not in the VIS photograph.  I showed them to the curator (I spoke no German and he spoke no English) and tried to ask what had happened to it in its history (as there was no statement of that on the work).</p><p>I swear the man was going to shit a brick.  He had a look of pure panic on his face when he saw the IR photograph- I think he immediately ran up there to check on it.  I don't think he understood what he was seeing (not surprising) so my wife and I left ASAP.</p><p>Now to me, IR would bring value- so would UV photographs of the artwork.  I know there are places that can do this much more professionally<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but hey, a hobby is a hobby.</p><p>The museum is out of line.  In a 'real world' they'd lose.  They'll probably respond by banning photography and forcing anyone that does want to do shots to sign a waiver.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a modified IR camera I use that I built to photograph artwork- it 's amazing what you can sometimes see 'underneath ' the paints the artist chose.In one gallery in Germany I saw a work of art in IR that had been severely damaged and retouched- it was clearly evident in the IR photograph but not in the VIS photograph .
I showed them to the curator ( I spoke no German and he spoke no English ) and tried to ask what had happened to it in its history ( as there was no statement of that on the work ) .I swear the man was going to shit a brick .
He had a look of pure panic on his face when he saw the IR photograph- I think he immediately ran up there to check on it .
I do n't think he understood what he was seeing ( not surprising ) so my wife and I left ASAP.Now to me , IR would bring value- so would UV photographs of the artwork .
I know there are places that can do this much more professionally ... but hey , a hobby is a hobby.The museum is out of line .
In a 'real world ' they 'd lose .
They 'll probably respond by banning photography and forcing anyone that does want to do shots to sign a waiver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a modified IR camera I use that I built to photograph artwork- it's amazing what you can sometimes see 'underneath' the paints the artist chose.In one gallery in Germany I saw a work of art in IR that had been severely damaged and retouched- it was clearly evident in the IR photograph but not in the VIS photograph.
I showed them to the curator (I spoke no German and he spoke no English) and tried to ask what had happened to it in its history (as there was no statement of that on the work).I swear the man was going to shit a brick.
He had a look of pure panic on his face when he saw the IR photograph- I think he immediately ran up there to check on it.
I don't think he understood what he was seeing (not surprising) so my wife and I left ASAP.Now to me, IR would bring value- so would UV photographs of the artwork.
I know there are places that can do this much more professionally ... but hey, a hobby is a hobby.The museum is out of line.
In a 'real world' they'd lose.
They'll probably respond by banning photography and forcing anyone that does want to do shots to sign a waiver.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661119</id>
	<title>Re:Heart of the global nature of the internet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247334540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The problem is that by inference we need a single global law for all electronically copyable information. "</p><p>1. Virtually all information is electronically copyable.<br>2. There is no organization with the authority to impose a law globally.<br>2A. Philosophically (IMO), there shouldn't be. The state exists to serve the citizen. (USA)<br>3. You are presupposing that copyright law is necessary at all.<br>4. You are presupposing that copyright law as it exists today is necessary.</p><p>The sharing or use of ideas should not be a crime. We have entered the INFORMATION AGE. The old paradigms no longer work. Look at one of the greatest inventors of all time (Benjamin Franklin) and his stance on copyright and patent law. More than 200 years ago his position was that we all stand on the shoulders of giants. All human intellectual progress belongs to the whole human race. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be ANY law to ensure that CREATORS and INVENTORS are somehow compensated for their contributions, but those laws should absolutely NOT extend to protect the revenue of 2nd and 3rd parties and beyond.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The problem is that by inference we need a single global law for all electronically copyable information .
" 1. Virtually all information is electronically copyable.2 .
There is no organization with the authority to impose a law globally.2A .
Philosophically ( IMO ) , there should n't be .
The state exists to serve the citizen .
( USA ) 3. You are presupposing that copyright law is necessary at all.4 .
You are presupposing that copyright law as it exists today is necessary.The sharing or use of ideas should not be a crime .
We have entered the INFORMATION AGE .
The old paradigms no longer work .
Look at one of the greatest inventors of all time ( Benjamin Franklin ) and his stance on copyright and patent law .
More than 200 years ago his position was that we all stand on the shoulders of giants .
All human intellectual progress belongs to the whole human race .
I 'm not saying that there should n't be ANY law to ensure that CREATORS and INVENTORS are somehow compensated for their contributions , but those laws should absolutely NOT extend to protect the revenue of 2nd and 3rd parties and beyond .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The problem is that by inference we need a single global law for all electronically copyable information.
"1. Virtually all information is electronically copyable.2.
There is no organization with the authority to impose a law globally.2A.
Philosophically (IMO), there shouldn't be.
The state exists to serve the citizen.
(USA)3. You are presupposing that copyright law is necessary at all.4.
You are presupposing that copyright law as it exists today is necessary.The sharing or use of ideas should not be a crime.
We have entered the INFORMATION AGE.
The old paradigms no longer work.
Look at one of the greatest inventors of all time (Benjamin Franklin) and his stance on copyright and patent law.
More than 200 years ago his position was that we all stand on the shoulders of giants.
All human intellectual progress belongs to the whole human race.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be ANY law to ensure that CREATORS and INVENTORS are somehow compensated for their contributions, but those laws should absolutely NOT extend to protect the revenue of 2nd and 3rd parties and beyond.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664449</id>
	<title>What someone should do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247317980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get a whole bunch of Brits to photograph the NPG building itself, then register their images with the copyright office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get a whole bunch of Brits to photograph the NPG building itself , then register their images with the copyright office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get a whole bunch of Brits to photograph the NPG building itself, then register their images with the copyright office.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660601</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>bagorange</author>
	<datestamp>1247331180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The letter is particularly odious in that it admits that his actions were completely within US law,</p></div></blockquote><p>

I fail to see the need for odium if the relevant jurisdiction is not the United States. </p><p>If there is any doubt at all over the relevant jurisdiction then there is clearly a legal matter to be settled.</p><p>
Imagine the reaction to someone trying to apply UK law in the US, or in a situation where a layman might believe the US was the relevant jurisdiction.

</p><p>Here are some thoughts re why they might not want high resolution copies in the public domain:</p><p>Existence of very high quality, free copies <i>could</i> end up reducing visitor numbers</p><p>It is obviously true that museums make some of their money (I have no idea how much)from selling books and the like. Sales could go down</p><p>Offtopic, but: If they let everyone go mad with their cameras, photographers would get in everyones way and not everyone could be trusted to make sure the flash was off.</p><blockquote><div><p>than claims of copyright over works hundreds of years old.</p></div></blockquote><p>

The issue is the copyright on the particular photos <i>not the paintings</i>. Since this is a complex legal issue, details like this matter

</p><p>Radioactive publicity? I am no PR person but here is my attempt at a response:</p><p>"An American citizen has taken works clearly under UK copyright and copied them. These works are protected and maintained by Her Majesty's National Portrait Gallery and paid for by British Government subsidy. The NPR believes that UK law should be enforced where it is relevant, regardless of whether citizens of other nations believe that rules should not apply to them."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The letter is particularly odious in that it admits that his actions were completely within US law , I fail to see the need for odium if the relevant jurisdiction is not the United States .
If there is any doubt at all over the relevant jurisdiction then there is clearly a legal matter to be settled .
Imagine the reaction to someone trying to apply UK law in the US , or in a situation where a layman might believe the US was the relevant jurisdiction .
Here are some thoughts re why they might not want high resolution copies in the public domain : Existence of very high quality , free copies could end up reducing visitor numbersIt is obviously true that museums make some of their money ( I have no idea how much ) from selling books and the like .
Sales could go downOfftopic , but : If they let everyone go mad with their cameras , photographers would get in everyones way and not everyone could be trusted to make sure the flash was off.than claims of copyright over works hundreds of years old .
The issue is the copyright on the particular photos not the paintings .
Since this is a complex legal issue , details like this matter Radioactive publicity ?
I am no PR person but here is my attempt at a response : " An American citizen has taken works clearly under UK copyright and copied them .
These works are protected and maintained by Her Majesty 's National Portrait Gallery and paid for by British Government subsidy .
The NPR believes that UK law should be enforced where it is relevant , regardless of whether citizens of other nations believe that rules should not apply to them .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The letter is particularly odious in that it admits that his actions were completely within US law,

I fail to see the need for odium if the relevant jurisdiction is not the United States.
If there is any doubt at all over the relevant jurisdiction then there is clearly a legal matter to be settled.
Imagine the reaction to someone trying to apply UK law in the US, or in a situation where a layman might believe the US was the relevant jurisdiction.
Here are some thoughts re why they might not want high resolution copies in the public domain:Existence of very high quality, free copies could end up reducing visitor numbersIt is obviously true that museums make some of their money (I have no idea how much)from selling books and the like.
Sales could go downOfftopic, but: If they let everyone go mad with their cameras, photographers would get in everyones way and not everyone could be trusted to make sure the flash was off.than claims of copyright over works hundreds of years old.
The issue is the copyright on the particular photos not the paintings.
Since this is a complex legal issue, details like this matter

Radioactive publicity?
I am no PR person but here is my attempt at a response:"An American citizen has taken works clearly under UK copyright and copied them.
These works are protected and maintained by Her Majesty's National Portrait Gallery and paid for by British Government subsidy.
The NPR believes that UK law should be enforced where it is relevant, regardless of whether citizens of other nations believe that rules should not apply to them.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664749</id>
	<title>Re:I got one of these letters in 2004.</title>
	<author>bagorange</author>
	<datestamp>1247322840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To tell you the truth I would probably vote for photgraphy being allowed in museums (subject to some way of making sure flashes are definitely not used, hand out black tape to each camera user?).
<p>What I am less on the side of information freedom zealots for is the high res, hard to produce photos being automatically public domain.</p><p>In the terms of (possibly irrelevant) US law what experience does a v high res photo (skillfully taken) "slavishly reproduce"?.</p><p>Is it viewing the pic from 2m away? Or is it inspecting the photo with a magnifying glass?</p><p>Why should an experience that almost no one would be allowed to have be protected?</p><p>What most irks me about this is that again we have people from the US arguing that their rules apply, not someone else's. Dcoetzee circumvented an anti copying measure, and uploaded high res pictures (of a quality that very few people will ever need) from the United Kingdom's National Portrait Gallery and is hiding behind American laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To tell you the truth I would probably vote for photgraphy being allowed in museums ( subject to some way of making sure flashes are definitely not used , hand out black tape to each camera user ? ) .
What I am less on the side of information freedom zealots for is the high res , hard to produce photos being automatically public domain.In the terms of ( possibly irrelevant ) US law what experience does a v high res photo ( skillfully taken ) " slavishly reproduce " ? .Is it viewing the pic from 2m away ?
Or is it inspecting the photo with a magnifying glass ? Why should an experience that almost no one would be allowed to have be protected ? What most irks me about this is that again we have people from the US arguing that their rules apply , not someone else 's .
Dcoetzee circumvented an anti copying measure , and uploaded high res pictures ( of a quality that very few people will ever need ) from the United Kingdom 's National Portrait Gallery and is hiding behind American laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To tell you the truth I would probably vote for photgraphy being allowed in museums (subject to some way of making sure flashes are definitely not used, hand out black tape to each camera user?).
What I am less on the side of information freedom zealots for is the high res, hard to produce photos being automatically public domain.In the terms of (possibly irrelevant) US law what experience does a v high res photo (skillfully taken) "slavishly reproduce"?.Is it viewing the pic from 2m away?
Or is it inspecting the photo with a magnifying glass?Why should an experience that almost no one would be allowed to have be protected?What most irks me about this is that again we have people from the US arguing that their rules apply, not someone else's.
Dcoetzee circumvented an anti copying measure, and uploaded high res pictures (of a quality that very few people will ever need) from the United Kingdom's National Portrait Gallery and is hiding behind American laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660177</id>
	<title>Re:These plaintiffs are being very reasonable</title>
	<author>TorKlingberg</author>
	<datestamp>1247328660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They may very well be misrepresenting the law in their own favor. Is as plain photograph of a public domain painting really copyrightable in the UK?</p><p>In any case, should a publicly funded institution really claim copyright of these photos when the won't let anyone else take photos of these old paintings?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They may very well be misrepresenting the law in their own favor .
Is as plain photograph of a public domain painting really copyrightable in the UK ? In any case , should a publicly funded institution really claim copyright of these photos when the wo n't let anyone else take photos of these old paintings ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They may very well be misrepresenting the law in their own favor.
Is as plain photograph of a public domain painting really copyrightable in the UK?In any case, should a publicly funded institution really claim copyright of these photos when the won't let anyone else take photos of these old paintings?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660151</id>
	<title>Re:These plaintiffs are being very reasonable</title>
	<author>gabebear</author>
	<datestamp>1247328540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To me it doesn't sound reasonable, they are wasting a LOT of money on a lawsuit that they know can't go anywhere. Launching frivolous lawsuits using tax payer funds is repugnant. The user was within his rights as an US citizen to ignore the UK law prohibiting him from downloading the images.
<br> <br>
If the NPG didn't want the images to be used under US copyright law, then they shouldn't have put them in the internet. If they didn't realize what they were doing, then it's their fault.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To me it does n't sound reasonable , they are wasting a LOT of money on a lawsuit that they know ca n't go anywhere .
Launching frivolous lawsuits using tax payer funds is repugnant .
The user was within his rights as an US citizen to ignore the UK law prohibiting him from downloading the images .
If the NPG did n't want the images to be used under US copyright law , then they should n't have put them in the internet .
If they did n't realize what they were doing , then it 's their fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me it doesn't sound reasonable, they are wasting a LOT of money on a lawsuit that they know can't go anywhere.
Launching frivolous lawsuits using tax payer funds is repugnant.
The user was within his rights as an US citizen to ignore the UK law prohibiting him from downloading the images.
If the NPG didn't want the images to be used under US copyright law, then they shouldn't have put them in the internet.
If they didn't realize what they were doing, then it's their fault.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28668059</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>ScottyLad</author>
	<datestamp>1247420700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'll be calling them [npg.org.uk] first thing Monday (in my capacity as "just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics") to establish just what they think they're doing here. Other bloggers and, if interested, journalists may wish to do the same, to establish what their consistent response is.</i></p><p>Don't you feel a more honest approach would be to call them in your capacity as <a href="http://www.davidgerard.co.uk/" title="davidgerard.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Press Officer for Wikimedia UK and a Volunteer Media Contact for the Wikimedia Foundation.</a> [davidgerard.co.uk]?</p><p>It seems you have a lot to say on this particular subject without making clear your motives?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll be calling them [ npg.org.uk ] first thing Monday ( in my capacity as " just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics " ) to establish just what they think they 're doing here .
Other bloggers and , if interested , journalists may wish to do the same , to establish what their consistent response is.Do n't you feel a more honest approach would be to call them in your capacity as Press Officer for Wikimedia UK and a Volunteer Media Contact for the Wikimedia Foundation .
[ davidgerard.co.uk ] ? It seems you have a lot to say on this particular subject without making clear your motives ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll be calling them [npg.org.uk] first thing Monday (in my capacity as "just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics") to establish just what they think they're doing here.
Other bloggers and, if interested, journalists may wish to do the same, to establish what their consistent response is.Don't you feel a more honest approach would be to call them in your capacity as Press Officer for Wikimedia UK and a Volunteer Media Contact for the Wikimedia Foundation.
[davidgerard.co.uk]?It seems you have a lot to say on this particular subject without making clear your motives?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664525</id>
	<title>It's the year 2200</title>
	<author>Jafafa Hots</author>
	<datestamp>1247318820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and in a strange twist of fate, the movie Star Wars has become public domain despite the Corporate Revenue Protection Act of 2100 which made every last bowel movement copyrighted until infinity. Some sort of mixup... but it's public domain.</p><p>In another strange twist of fate, every existing copy of the film has become unusable... the films have long since rotted away, the holographic cubes were all victims of light-rot or something... so the film Star Wars is lost to the world.</p><p>Until I find a DVD in a garage sale, it miraculously seems to have survived the disc-eating microbes, and through my arcane knowledge of ancient DVD ripping tools, I am able to successfully extract a copy, correcting for dropouts, making it all nice and clean and watchable.</p><p>Do I now hold the copyright to Star Wars? Am I an instant bajillionaire?</p><p>In the UK I am, I guess.</p><p>Back to the present. As a collector, I own many out-of-copyright books and other materials, some of them the only ones known. I can take great effort to reproduce them... do I own the copyright on them?</p><p>Only in a totally insane corporate kleptocratic world. The very intent behind copyright in the first place was that such things WOULD be public domain, and that COPIES of them would be public domain, and would be recopied and recopied.</p><p>Laws like this turn the original intent of copyright on its head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and in a strange twist of fate , the movie Star Wars has become public domain despite the Corporate Revenue Protection Act of 2100 which made every last bowel movement copyrighted until infinity .
Some sort of mixup... but it 's public domain.In another strange twist of fate , every existing copy of the film has become unusable... the films have long since rotted away , the holographic cubes were all victims of light-rot or something... so the film Star Wars is lost to the world.Until I find a DVD in a garage sale , it miraculously seems to have survived the disc-eating microbes , and through my arcane knowledge of ancient DVD ripping tools , I am able to successfully extract a copy , correcting for dropouts , making it all nice and clean and watchable.Do I now hold the copyright to Star Wars ?
Am I an instant bajillionaire ? In the UK I am , I guess.Back to the present .
As a collector , I own many out-of-copyright books and other materials , some of them the only ones known .
I can take great effort to reproduce them... do I own the copyright on them ? Only in a totally insane corporate kleptocratic world .
The very intent behind copyright in the first place was that such things WOULD be public domain , and that COPIES of them would be public domain , and would be recopied and recopied.Laws like this turn the original intent of copyright on its head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and in a strange twist of fate, the movie Star Wars has become public domain despite the Corporate Revenue Protection Act of 2100 which made every last bowel movement copyrighted until infinity.
Some sort of mixup... but it's public domain.In another strange twist of fate, every existing copy of the film has become unusable... the films have long since rotted away, the holographic cubes were all victims of light-rot or something... so the film Star Wars is lost to the world.Until I find a DVD in a garage sale, it miraculously seems to have survived the disc-eating microbes, and through my arcane knowledge of ancient DVD ripping tools, I am able to successfully extract a copy, correcting for dropouts, making it all nice and clean and watchable.Do I now hold the copyright to Star Wars?
Am I an instant bajillionaire?In the UK I am, I guess.Back to the present.
As a collector, I own many out-of-copyright books and other materials, some of them the only ones known.
I can take great effort to reproduce them... do I own the copyright on them?Only in a totally insane corporate kleptocratic world.
The very intent behind copyright in the first place was that such things WOULD be public domain, and that COPIES of them would be public domain, and would be recopied and recopied.Laws like this turn the original intent of copyright on its head.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660853</id>
	<title>Re:Heart of the global nature of the internet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247332740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>4. If the person who uploaded the photos travels to the EU, they are toast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4 .
If the person who uploaded the photos travels to the EU , they are toast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4.
If the person who uploaded the photos travels to the EU, they are toast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583</id>
	<title>Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity</title>
	<author>julian67</author>
	<datestamp>1247331120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"his actions were completely within US law"</p><p>Circumventing copy protection? DMCA anyone? If he did this to a US site he would be charged with a felony. As the lawyer's letter states the act of circumvention of copy prevention took place on UK based servers and he's guilty under UK law.</p><p>"Unlawful circumvention of technical measures</p><p>s.296ZF(1) of the CDPA provides as follows:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "In sections 296ZA to 296ZE, "technological measures" are any technology, device or component which is designed, in the normal course of its operation, to protect a copyright work other than a computer program."</p><p>s.296ZA(1) of the CDPA provides as follows:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "This section applies where -<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (a) effective technological measures have been applied to a copyright work other than a computer program; and</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (b) a person (B) does anything which circumvents those measures knowing, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he is pursuing that objective.</p><p>As you know, the images from our client's website that you have copied were made available from our client's website using "Zoomify" software. As you know, Zoomify is an application that is used to publish photographic images in such a way that an entire high resolution image is never made available to a user although high-resolution extracts or "tiles" are made available one-at-a-time. Our client used the Zoomify technology to protect our client's copyright in the high resolution images.</p><p>By deliberately posting images from our client's website to the Wikipedia website in which the Zoomify software has been circumvented you have therefore acted in breach of section 296ZA(1) of the CDPA.</p><p>[edit] "</p><p>If you contend that the act of circumvention took place in the US then he's guilty under the far more onerous US law. Whichever way you look at it he did something that if discovered inevitably leads to either litigation or criminal prosecution. The NPG made an attempt to deal with this on a less formal basis and was rebuffed, hence litigition ensues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" his actions were completely within US law " Circumventing copy protection ?
DMCA anyone ?
If he did this to a US site he would be charged with a felony .
As the lawyer 's letter states the act of circumvention of copy prevention took place on UK based servers and he 's guilty under UK law .
" Unlawful circumvention of technical measuress.296ZF ( 1 ) of the CDPA provides as follows :         " In sections 296ZA to 296ZE , " technological measures " are any technology , device or component which is designed , in the normal course of its operation , to protect a copyright work other than a computer program .
" s.296ZA ( 1 ) of the CDPA provides as follows :         " This section applies where -         ( a ) effective technological measures have been applied to a copyright work other than a computer program ; and         ( b ) a person ( B ) does anything which circumvents those measures knowing , or with reasonable grounds to know , that he is pursuing that objective.As you know , the images from our client 's website that you have copied were made available from our client 's website using " Zoomify " software .
As you know , Zoomify is an application that is used to publish photographic images in such a way that an entire high resolution image is never made available to a user although high-resolution extracts or " tiles " are made available one-at-a-time .
Our client used the Zoomify technology to protect our client 's copyright in the high resolution images.By deliberately posting images from our client 's website to the Wikipedia website in which the Zoomify software has been circumvented you have therefore acted in breach of section 296ZA ( 1 ) of the CDPA .
[ edit ] " If you contend that the act of circumvention took place in the US then he 's guilty under the far more onerous US law .
Whichever way you look at it he did something that if discovered inevitably leads to either litigation or criminal prosecution .
The NPG made an attempt to deal with this on a less formal basis and was rebuffed , hence litigition ensues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"his actions were completely within US law"Circumventing copy protection?
DMCA anyone?
If he did this to a US site he would be charged with a felony.
As the lawyer's letter states the act of circumvention of copy prevention took place on UK based servers and he's guilty under UK law.
"Unlawful circumvention of technical measuress.296ZF(1) of the CDPA provides as follows:
        "In sections 296ZA to 296ZE, "technological measures" are any technology, device or component which is designed, in the normal course of its operation, to protect a copyright work other than a computer program.
"s.296ZA(1) of the CDPA provides as follows:
        "This section applies where -
        (a) effective technological measures have been applied to a copyright work other than a computer program; and
        (b) a person (B) does anything which circumvents those measures knowing, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he is pursuing that objective.As you know, the images from our client's website that you have copied were made available from our client's website using "Zoomify" software.
As you know, Zoomify is an application that is used to publish photographic images in such a way that an entire high resolution image is never made available to a user although high-resolution extracts or "tiles" are made available one-at-a-time.
Our client used the Zoomify technology to protect our client's copyright in the high resolution images.By deliberately posting images from our client's website to the Wikipedia website in which the Zoomify software has been circumvented you have therefore acted in breach of section 296ZA(1) of the CDPA.
[edit] "If you contend that the act of circumvention took place in the US then he's guilty under the far more onerous US law.
Whichever way you look at it he did something that if discovered inevitably leads to either litigation or criminal prosecution.
The NPG made an attempt to deal with this on a less formal basis and was rebuffed, hence litigition ensues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28665113</id>
	<title>Re:NPG web site makes it clear</title>
	<author>graphius</author>
	<datestamp>1247329140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have done a fair bit of art reproduction photography. It is a lot of work, and I charge a pretty penny to get a good reproduction. However never am I so presumptuous to say I now own copyright on the images. I think this is just greed over pimping public property.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have done a fair bit of art reproduction photography .
It is a lot of work , and I charge a pretty penny to get a good reproduction .
However never am I so presumptuous to say I now own copyright on the images .
I think this is just greed over pimping public property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have done a fair bit of art reproduction photography.
It is a lot of work, and I charge a pretty penny to get a good reproduction.
However never am I so presumptuous to say I now own copyright on the images.
I think this is just greed over pimping public property.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660045</id>
	<title>Re:NPG web site makes it clear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247327760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It makes it clear how the National Portrait Gallery WANTS to make additional money from reproductions of classical artworks. It doesn't make it clear whether that is right.  If the lawyer's interpretation of the law i right, the NPG does have the right under UK copyright law to do so.  However it's morally wrong because:</p><p>1) The law is flawed: The act of photographing a painting with the best quality of reproduction of the original is a technical exercise, not a creative act. It's not essentially different from an experienced photocopier operator making a photocopy. It should not therefore add additional copyright privileges over and above the item that is being photographed.</p><p>2) The National Portrait Gallery is a public body who receive public funds on the basis that they display and educate a many people as possible about the artworks they have. The ability to disseminate high quality reproductions via the internet at no cost to them should be thought of as a godsend, not as a financial loss. They are supposed to be serving the public good, not acting like a corporation. Thus even if the law could prevent this happening, they shouldn't use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes it clear how the National Portrait Gallery WANTS to make additional money from reproductions of classical artworks .
It does n't make it clear whether that is right .
If the lawyer 's interpretation of the law i right , the NPG does have the right under UK copyright law to do so .
However it 's morally wrong because : 1 ) The law is flawed : The act of photographing a painting with the best quality of reproduction of the original is a technical exercise , not a creative act .
It 's not essentially different from an experienced photocopier operator making a photocopy .
It should not therefore add additional copyright privileges over and above the item that is being photographed.2 ) The National Portrait Gallery is a public body who receive public funds on the basis that they display and educate a many people as possible about the artworks they have .
The ability to disseminate high quality reproductions via the internet at no cost to them should be thought of as a godsend , not as a financial loss .
They are supposed to be serving the public good , not acting like a corporation .
Thus even if the law could prevent this happening , they should n't use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes it clear how the National Portrait Gallery WANTS to make additional money from reproductions of classical artworks.
It doesn't make it clear whether that is right.
If the lawyer's interpretation of the law i right, the NPG does have the right under UK copyright law to do so.
However it's morally wrong because:1) The law is flawed: The act of photographing a painting with the best quality of reproduction of the original is a technical exercise, not a creative act.
It's not essentially different from an experienced photocopier operator making a photocopy.
It should not therefore add additional copyright privileges over and above the item that is being photographed.2) The National Portrait Gallery is a public body who receive public funds on the basis that they display and educate a many people as possible about the artworks they have.
The ability to disseminate high quality reproductions via the internet at no cost to them should be thought of as a godsend, not as a financial loss.
They are supposed to be serving the public good, not acting like a corporation.
Thus even if the law could prevent this happening, they shouldn't use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661425</id>
	<title>Re:Heart of the global nature of the internet</title>
	<author>artg</author>
	<datestamp>1247336700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The act was performed from the US, and the photos stored in the US. But the copy involved a server in the UK, so if anyone broke UK copyright law it would be the NPG<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</htmltext>
<tokenext>The act was performed from the US , and the photos stored in the US .
But the copy involved a server in the UK , so if anyone broke UK copyright law it would be the NPG . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The act was performed from the US, and the photos stored in the US.
But the copy involved a server in the UK, so if anyone broke UK copyright law it would be the NPG ..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660271</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28662065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28673985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28681933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28667629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28666617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28663205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28672783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28666705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28686801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28668345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28662843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28663179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28679303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28674787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28665967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28678203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28668245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28668847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28665717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28668059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28663449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28662021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28666725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28674213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28665123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28668809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28665113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28662823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28662209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28666737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28662023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28777965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1239244_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1239244.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664749
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28674213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1239244.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660869
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28662843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660501
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1239244.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661119
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1239244.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1239244.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660583
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661413
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28681933
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661815
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664945
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28668345
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28668245
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28662209
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28663205
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28666725
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28686801
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28777965
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661143
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661261
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28674787
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28666617
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661397
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661615
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28679303
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28667629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28665967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660319
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28668059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660793
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1239244.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1239244.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659827
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660291
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659941
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660211
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661097
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28672783
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1239244.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28663179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28666705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661993
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1239244.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660045
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664067
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661807
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28668809
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28662021
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28665113
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28662023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28665123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28662823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1239244.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28662065
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28673985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28678203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28666737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660913
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1239244.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28664525
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1239244.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660175
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1239244.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661107
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1239244.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28659961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28668847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28663449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28665717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28660279
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1239244.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1239244.28661905
</commentlist>
</conversation>
