

Wikimedia portrait case is about the future of museums, not the public domain - waderoush
http://www.xconomy.com/national/2009/07/17/art-isnt-free-the-tragedy-of-the-wikimedia-commons/

======
ggchappell
This is curious. The author is worried about the future of museums, due to the
points in U.K. law under question. And yet, while he notes that the
photographs would be considered public-domain in the U.S., there doesn't seem
to be any worry about U.S. museums. Or those in other countries.

Isn't that a bit odd?

Now, is there a serious problem here? Maybe, maybe not. But the rather
provincial viewpoint of this article doesn't help us answer the question.

------
ZeroGravitas
I'm surprised by the amount of negative reaction the Wikipedia stance is
getting, seems pretty sensible to me, not to mention ethically sound.

This guy doesn't seem to have much of a point. He thinks this is a case of
"tragedy of the commons" when really, since you can't use up a digital image
by looking at it or duplicating it, it's really a case of Public Goods
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good>) and the problems they have.

Why build a lighthouse if you can't charge people and exclude those who don't
pay? Standard answer, get the government to do it and force people to pay via
taxation. Since most of these museums are government funded already, problem
solved.

I also don't understand the reference to the Van Gogh
([http://www.xconomy.com/national/2009/07/17/art-isnt-free-
the...](http://www.xconomy.com/national/2009/07/17/art-isnt-free-the-tragedy-
of-the-wikimedia-commons/attachment/mfa-houses-at-auvers/)). It seems like US
institutions are pulling the same kind of nonsense, even after a court ruling
against it.

