Comments:U.K. National Portrait Gallery threatens U.S. citizen with legal action over Wikimedia images

The UK legal system doesn't care about your rights
I hope the threatened parties simply ignore the National Portrait Gallery's bloviating. All of them are under U.S. jurisdiction, and us Americans shouldn't allow our rights to be reduced to the least common denominator among nations, especially when those nations include ones like the U.K. that have no concrete protections of individual liberties under law. Another manifestation of this same phenomenon is libel shopping wherein multinational entities file baseless SLAPP-type libel suits in U.K. courts because there is no rigid protection of freedom of speech as there is in the U.S. Unfortunately, it can be hard for publishers to avoid harm in those cases, but in this one it's easy. Let them eat cake. 209.30.170.213 (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just there the other day, glad I didn't take any pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.100.29 (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a slightly different issue, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were some kind of sui generis "intellectual property" interest in lighting arrangements that would be violated by taking a picture of an item inside the gallery. That's how ridiculous this is. 209.30.170.213 (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The comparison between America and the U.K. seems unfortunate, but there's certainly truth in it. Really, which part of these threats is surprising? It's obviously a legal threat made against a party that seems vulnerable for the sake of money. That's just how it works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.13.88 (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone daring to question the ability of the US of to do anything? Tar and feather!
I'm sincerely surprised to see anybody trying the "I'll sue anybody anywhere even if I am not right". They should pay for the right to use the method.

Anyway it's twice as ridiculous as the infringer comes from the States. After all the abuses abroad perpetrated by US based firms now they are still the ones to do as they please?

There's a sickening view anyway. Museums are places of culture which get next to nothing in the beautiful NATO country sight which spends sums that can feed the entire World just on weapons of mass destruction. At the same time Spears, Madonna or Metallica have the right to do anything to save them from starvation, but these last fortresses of education and art have no rights whatsoever.

So big players like Microsoft, Adobe and many other US based software firms can also retain the right to prosecute anybody anywhere in relation with software they don't bother to maintain and support anymore (old versions), yet a museum should be the last one to request anything while it maintains, restores, offers guided tours, etc.

You sick hypocrites!

Unsigned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.32.194.22 (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing you just said made any sense at all. You are severely misinformed and/or idiotic. Even assuming arguendo that the museum's "rights" are being infringed, what does this have to do with the U.S. government at all? This is an action by a U.K. public entity against an individual and (indirectly) a private non-profit in the U.S. in which the U.S. government has not expressed any opinion and is not even a party. I don't see what this has to do with U.S. foreign policy stereotypes. Apparently, according to you, the U.S. government should prevent its private citizens from filing copyright claims that are countenanced by law in the countries in which they are filed? I find no analogy here to threatening to sue a U.S. individual in a foreign court with no jurisdiction of the body. 209.30.170.213 (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The government of a country represents the people of that country. Even with a despotic system there are ways to change the leadership. In the case of a voting society the citizens are entirely responsible for the actions of the state they 1. organised 2. voted 3. paid. As for stereotypes - the one I know are generated from the film industry about the state being democratic, although it has nothing to do with the greek concept, about fighting for freedom by imprisoning people, etc. Or from the news media - fighting for life by putting bombs at clinics, etc. Also the justice system based on analogy and precedence is just a retrograd system used by a minority of countries. The others just use the law instead of political bargaining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.32.194.22 (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're still not making any sense. One can, once again, assume your dubious premises to be true and still fail to come to any kind of a point. What does the representativeness or non-representativeness of governments have to do with this? As for the "retrograd" system of justice based on "analogy and precedence" I agree that it's not in vogue among the majority of countries. The numerical majority employs a system based on bribery, manipulation by executive officials and extortionate political prosecution. I'd much prefer to keep our "retrograd" system and stay in the minority. 209.30.170.213 (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're wasting your time. 89.32.194.22 is babbling incoherently. Obviously the thorazine drip came out and he's loose unmedicated. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)