6 Day Trading Secrets for Beginners by articlesub123As a day trader in the new market environment, and with a Trump presidency looming, what you want to do is to look for scenarios where demand and supply are drastically imbalanced, and use those as your entry and exit points.What traders do not realise is that if supply is near the exact exhaustion and there are still buyers willing to buy, prices will go higher. And vice versa for selling.Here are 6 trading secrets for day traders or novices stock market traders. 1. Always set your price targets before your entry trade.If you are going long the market, decide beforehand how much profit you want to take, and also how much you are willing to risk, in case you take a loss. Doing this is quite smart and very good traders never enter a trade unless they know what the potential profit is, as well as the potential loss. Sometimes in a volatile market, you must be prepared to give a little leeway because of the economic conditions or because of a large news item that may be pending. 2. Makes sure your risk reward is 3:1One of the most significant things about stock trading is you must understand proper risk reward ratios. If you go into the stock market each day with the mentality of lose small, and win big, you will thrive throughout your trading career. So this means even if you have a few losses in a row, and then take a win, your account will never go backwards at the end of the month. Once you gain lots of experience in this area you can move out to ratios as high as 5:1. 3. Be humble and patient.Successful day traders will never have the feel that they must trade every day. That is not the right approach when you are an active trader. They may sit and watch, but if they do not see any earth shattering opportunities its better to sit on their hands. I remember a very smart trader saying to me, sometimes the smartest trade you can make is the one you dont make. Meaning its much harder not to make a trade, than to make a trade for the hell of it and regret it later. If you do not plan your trades, and then trade your plans you can lose entire accounts very fast. 4. Keep disciplined.Keeping focus is the best way to be a good trader. Once you set out a trader plan, ensure you stick to it, like glue. If you have a mentor, who is very good at stock trader, make live trades and have them watch over your shoulder to ensure you are not making mistakes. This will not only help you keep disciplined, but it will ensure when you are trading on your own you are doing the right things, and taking the right actions at the right time with strict discipline. Also, when you take a profit, never let that profit turn into a loss. Its always better to exit 50% – 60% of that trade and acknowledge that taking profits and running is also a good trait to have as well. The more wins you can get, and the more profits you can keep the more successful you will be as a trader. 5. Trade with money only you can afford to lose.Successful traders have a bucket of money they are saving and will have as a longer term goal. But active traders will always invest money they know they can afford to lose. Never gamble with your rent money, or put in positions with your grocery money. Always have money you have saved and feel comfortable to use when the odds are highly in your favour. 6. Each trader never risk 100% of your account.When you have a win, always be sure to set aside some of your daily budget. This could be an amount from 3% to 11% and it will also depend on how much money you have sitting in your account ready and available. Never allow the size of your position to exceed that of the free money you have sitting in your account. Too many times traders make this mistake and can end up owning more money than they have in their account altogether. Plus the fact that if you put your account at risk, you might miss out on other opportunities that will present themselves throughout the month. How many times have you had active investments going, when you suddenly see one of those once in a life time trades. Of course many opportunities will come to you throughout the year, but also have a portion of your account readily available in case you spot some low risk, and high reward trades.What If You Knew Which Way The Stock Market Was About To Move Before It Happened? CLICK HERE!Article Source: eArticlesOnline.com
Monday, June 13, 2016
The following is the first edition of a monthly series chronicling the U.S. 2016 presidential election. It features original material compiled throughout the previous month after an overview of the month’s biggest stories.
In this month’s edition on the campaign trail: a former Republican congressman briefly joins the Libertarian Party and runs for vice president; the Democratic Party names its National Convention Platform Drafting Committee amid controversy; and Wikinews interviews a candidate who had a surprisingly strong performance in the West Virginia Democratic presidential primary.
Investing in expert SEO services is the No. 1 way to boost your web traffic in a meaningful way, and gain more conversions from visits. When done correctly, online marketing – including PPC ads, SEO, and more – is the primary way to attract business and make sales happen. However, even the best modern business managers may struggle with understanding or securing these services. This is where the help of SEO professionals comes in handy.
Tailoring Services to Fit Your Needs
Some business owners prefer to do business with an internet marketing specialist face-to-face, while others prefer to leave the work to the pros and never schedule a single in-person meeting. With so many different approaches to the world of online marketing, it’s best to patronize businesses that are flexible and provide both types of services. Shopping with companies that offer specifically what you need is a sure-fire way to get the results you want.
Business owners in the Houston, TX area can contact internet marketing agency eWebResults for assistance with increasing market reach and conversion results. These local professionals provide consumers both close to the Houston area and elsewhere with PPC management services, instruction in search engine optimization, and more. Serving both nearby and national gives these providers an excellent collection of past clients from which to pull real-world experience within the industry – experience they pass along to new clients every day.
In-House or Contracted? It’s All About Business Size.
Although many large corporations now employ website marketing management teams on-staff, this isn’t usually an option for small businesses. For these brands, the best bet is to consult dedicated SEO service professionals for help with making vital connections and turning them into business contacts and consumers. SEO services are now and are likely to remain the number one way to take small businesses into the stratosphere, and whether you employ these professionals directly or through a marketing company, it’s an investment you won’t regret.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
|Mr. Casgrain’s credentials will bring strong leadership to the CBC. I am confident that his experience and sound judgement will greatly benefit the CBC.|
“Mr. Casgrain’s credentials will bring strong leadership to the CBC,” said Oda. “I am confident that his experience and sound judgement will greatly benefit the CBC.”
Casgrain was born in Montreal, Quebec and studied at McGill University. In 1969, he served as a teacher in a small African town in Chad for two years. Some years later, he became an accountant. In 1976, he was chairperson of Skyservice Investments Inc., a Canadian aviation company and was Executive Vice President of the Brascan Financial Corp. In 1988, he was President and Chief Executive Officer of NBS Technologies.
Since then, Casgrain has served many other positions and has many other honours in his name. Casgrain has been a member of the Order of Chartered Accountants of Quebec since 1976 and is the president of the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame.
Submitted by: Hourse Dunfst
Most of us have spent the evening years ago on ordinary sofa sleeper. You know the foldable innerspring mattress and metal bars running beneath poking you in the back throughout the evening. It is where the term having a “bar inside your back” came from. Sofa Sleepers in the 21st Century are creating and becoming far more handy through new technologies. In this write-up we’ll point out some of those innovations and how they make sofa sleepers a lot more convenient through the evening.
American leather and upholstery sofa sleepers have constantly been suggested in regular North American rates . These sizes incorporate twin, full, queen and king sizes. The concern over the years has been that these types of sofa sleepers aren’t actual mattress sizes with most only approaching 75″ lengthy regardless of size. That was an issue for taller guests or shoppers who would discover their legs hanging off of the end of the sleeper mattress. These days sofa sleeper producers are starting to think about this issue and one American manufacturer is providing new comfort in sleepers by suggesting “real” mattress sizes in sleepers creating them 80″ in length. This means twin and full sleepers are now so long sizes so even taller guests will need to discover these sleepers convenient .
Eliminating that “bar within your back”, has been within the minds of North American sofa sleeper producers for a lengthy time . The way about this concern demanded a fully new design within the structure of the sofa sleeper frame and what soon was develop was a working mechanism recognized as the Tiffany 24/7. This mechanism was explored by designers Barbara and Robert Tiffany. This new design demands 10 inches less floor space and permits for the specially created frame which supplies an 80 inch lengthy foundation for sleeper mattresses. The comfort sleepers deliver in contemporary designs by allowing for longer mattress sizes is really a large benefit .
Having the correct mattress on a sofa sleeper is vital too. Years ago thin innerspring mattresses have been the only obtainable mattresses for sleepers. Technologies has created in sofa sleeper designs and new mattresses for these frames have been explored . American sleeper producers are now incorporating high thickness foam mattresses into the comfort sleepers now produce. Besides the rated thickness , contract density memory foam is available now.
If you’ve been hesitant to think about a sofa sleeper for your house on account of ordinary sofa sleeper styles it’s time to check out the new designs accessible in North America that convert what it implies to be a sofa sleeper.
Whenever you appear at ordinary sleepers with the steel bars and thin innerspring mattresses it’s basically to understand how far modern day sofa sleepers have are available in attempting to allow you to get a comfort sleeper that’s just ideal for you and your family. So if you’re able to convert that family room or den into a living space / guest room, contemporary sofa sleepers may perhaps be your answer .
About the Author: Obtain a modern-day sofa mattress sleeper at the notable
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Last week the BBC reported that the McCain campaign had released an advertisement comparing Obama to American celebrities Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, calling him “the biggest celebrity in the world.”
McCain’s newest advertisement, released early this week, continues along those same lines.
“Is the biggest celebrity in the world ready to help your family?” the narrator asks, according to The Boston Globe and a video of the ad displayed on its website. “The real Obama promises higher taxes, more government spending. So, fewer jobs.” With images of wind turbines in the background, the narrator says, “Renewable energy to transform our economy, create jobs and energy independence, that’s John McCain.”
The Boston Globe reports that McCain’s latest ad does not acknowledge that Obama’s economic policy, especially the proposed rollback of current president George W. Bush’s capital gains tax cuts, would largely affect the wealthiest of America, not the middle class.
Obama, the BBC reports, is quoted as calling McCain “cynical,” “desperate” and “in the pocket of Big Oil.”
The latest Obama video, shown on the USA Today website, touts McCain as “just more of the same” politics employed by George W. Bush. The ad cites a May 22, 2003 Fox News Channel interview where McCain says “the President and I agree on most issues. There was a recent study that showed I voted with the President over 90 percent of the time.” The ad then criticizes McCain’s policies on tax cuts, money for oil companies, and “tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.”
USA Today does note that “[w]hile the ad shows McCain touting the fact that he had voted “with” President Bush more than 90% of the time, the Arizona senator did criticize the administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq — calling early on for more troops to be sent there. He also voted against the president’s original tax cut plan — though McCain now says he supports extending those tax cuts. And, he proposes cuts in all kinds of corporate taxes, not just those on oil companies.”
McCain is set to appear at an Ohio furniture plant Wednesday to reinforce the messages in his latest advertisement.
“America has the second highest business tax rate in the entire world,” he plans to say, according to prepared remarks issued by his campaign, and released by The Boston Globe. “Is it any wonder that jobs are moving overseas when we are taxing them out of the country? Unfortunately Senator Obama’s plans would raise taxes on businesses even more. He has promised tax increases on income, tax increases on investment, tax increases on small businesses. This is exactly the wrong strategy. Raising taxes in a bad economy is about the worst thing you could do because it will kill even more jobs when what we need are policies that create jobs.”
Obama spokesman Bill Burton responded:
“Is the biggest proponent of George Bush’s tired, failed policies ready to bring about change? Another day brings another dishonest attack from John McCain. While Senator McCain knows that Senator Obama has proposed cutting taxes for 95% of American families, what he’s not telling us is that he wants to give $4 billion in tax breaks to the oil companies, continue giving tax breaks to corporations that ship our job overseas, and provide no direct tax relief for more than 100 million middle-class families. It’s time to retire these old policies and bring new energy to America.”
Sunday, July 17, 2016
The following is the second edition of a monthly series chronicling the U.S. 2016 presidential election. It features original material compiled throughout the previous month after an overview of the month’s biggest stories.
In this month’s edition on the campaign trail: the effect of the Brexit vote on the US presidential election is examined; a well known businessman and sports team owner pitches his candidacy for vice president; and Wikinews interviews the winner of the American Independent Party California primary.
- Click Here For More Specific Information On:
- Atlex Stockyards
Are you in the feed or fertilizer business? Maybe you run milling or cement applications. Mixing could be a huge part of your business, and when you need equipment, it’s important to choose the best industrial mixer. Here is a look at some of your choices you have today.
A ribbon type industrial mixer is used when you want an even blending of mixtures. Inside the unit is a shaft with circular type mixing blades in a double helix configuration. As the shaft turns it mixes the material in two different directions at the same time. This makes it very efficient, and mixing does not have to occur at high speeds.
A double ribbon agitator mixer is one of the preferred types in the industry today. In fact, this type of mixer can completely mix materials like poultry and hog feed in about 3 minutes time. Quality ribbon mixers can be ordered with gear or chain drives and scales. Also, if you are mixing liquid fat, special ribbon mixers are available to handle the job.
When you need a highly versatile industrial mixer, you might want to consider a paddle agitator mixer. For example, you may have the need to blend livestock feed with molasses, and a paddle mixer can handle mixtures as high as twenty percent molasses. In this way, your product can be placed in bags immediately after mixing.
A paddle mixer contains a central shaft with blades shaped like paddles. The most effective mixers utilize paddles with “T” shaped heads that conform to the interior. This creates a thorough mixing, and will work well for many types of grain and roughage. However, the best materials for paddle mixing are feed products for:
* Horses* Sheep* Dairy* Cattle
Do you need to handle materials with a high bulk density? Consider something made especially for the job, like a super duty industrial mixer. This is especially important if you are handling concentrates and premix materials, as the density averages around 65 lbs per cubic foot. Super duty mixers can handle material as heavy as 70 lbs per cubic foot, and you can choose stainless steel for maximum corrosion resistance.
No matter what your needs, you can find the right industrial mixer when you go with a trusted source in the business. They can provide you with standard duty, heavy duty, and super duty units. Plus, if your needs are portable, trailer mounted industrial mixers are also available.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
|This article mentions the Wikimedia Foundation, one of its projects, or people related to it. Wikinews is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation.|
The English National Portrait Gallery (NPG) in London has threatened on Friday to sue a U.S. citizen, Derrick Coetzee. The legal letter followed claims that he had breached the Gallery’s copyright in several thousand photographs of works of art uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, a free online media repository.
In a letter from their solicitors sent to Coetzee via electronic mail, the NPG asserted that it holds copyright in the photographs under U.K. law, and demanded that Coetzee provide various undertakings and remove all of the images from the site (referred to in the letter as “the Wikipedia website”).
Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free-to-use media, run by a community of volunteers from around the world, and is a sister project to Wikinews and the encyclopedia Wikipedia. Coetzee, who contributes to the Commons using the account “Dcoetzee”, had uploaded images that are free for public use under United States law, where he and the website are based. However copyright is claimed to exist in the country where the gallery is situated.
The complaint by the NPG is that under UK law, its copyright in the photographs of its portraits is being violated. While the gallery has complained to the Wikimedia Foundation for a number of years, this is the first direct threat of legal action made against an actual uploader of images. In addition to the allegation that Coetzee had violated the NPG’s copyright, they also allege that Coetzee had, by uploading thousands of images in bulk, infringed the NPG’s database right, breached a contract with the NPG; and circumvented a copyright protection mechanism on the NPG’s web site.
The copyright protection mechanism referred to is Zoomify, a product of Zoomify, Inc. of Santa Cruz, California. NPG’s solicitors stated in their letter that “Our client used the Zoomify technology to protect our client’s copyright in the high resolution images.”. Zoomify Inc. states in the Zoomify support documentation that its product is intended to make copying of images “more difficult” by breaking the image into smaller pieces and disabling the option within many web browsers to click and save images, but that they “provide Zoomify as a viewing solution and not an image security system”.
In particular, Zoomify’s website comments that while “many customers — famous museums for example” use Zoomify, in their experience a “general consensus” seems to exist that most museums are concerned with making the images in their galleries accessible to the public, rather than preventing the public from accessing them or making copies; they observe that a desire to prevent high resolution images being distributed would also imply prohibiting the sale of any posters or production of high quality printed material that could be scanned and placed online.
Other actions in the past have come directly from the NPG, rather than via solicitors. For example, several edits have been made directly to the English-language Wikipedia from the IP address 22.214.171.124, one of sixteen such IP addresses assigned to computers at the NPG by its ISP, Easynet.
In the period from August 2005 to July 2006 an individual within the NPG using that IP address acted to remove the use of several Wikimedia Commons pictures from articles in Wikipedia, including removing an image of the Chandos portrait, which the NPG has had in its possession since 1856, from Wikipedia’s biographical article on William Shakespeare.
Other actions included adding notices to the pages for images, and to the text of several articles using those images, such as the following edit to Wikipedia’s article on Catherine of Braganza and to its page for the Wikipedia Commons image of Branwell Brontë‘s portrait of his sisters:
- “THIS IMAGE IS BEING USED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER.”
- “This image is copyright material and must not be reproduced in any way without permission of the copyright holder. Under current UK copyright law, there is copyright in skilfully executed photographs of ex-copyright works, such as this painting of Catherine de Braganza.
- The original painting belongs to the National Portrait Gallery, London. For copies, and permission to reproduce the image, please contact the Gallery at email@example.com or via our website at www.npg.org.uk”
Other, later, edits, made on the day that NPG’s solicitors contacted Coetzee and drawn to the NPG’s attention by Wikinews, are currently the subject of an internal investigation within the NPG.
Coetzee published the contents of the letter on Saturday July 11, the letter itself being dated the previous day. It had been sent electronically to an email address associated with his Wikimedia Commons user account. The NPG’s solicitors had mailed the letter from an account in the name “Amisquitta”. This account was blocked shortly after by a user with access to the user blocking tool, citing a long standing Wikipedia policy that the making of legal threats and creation of a hostile environment is generally inconsistent with editing access and is an inappropriate means of resolving user disputes.
The policy, initially created on Commons’ sister website in June 2004, is also intended to protect all parties involved in a legal dispute, by ensuring that their legal communications go through proper channels, and not through a wiki that is open to editing by other members of the public. It was originally formulated primarily to address legal action for libel. In October 2004 it was noted that there was “no consensus” whether legal threats related to copyright infringement would be covered but by the end of 2006 the policy had reached a consensus that such threats (as opposed to polite complaints) were not compatible with editing access while a legal matter was unresolved. Commons’ own website states that “[accounts] used primarily to create a hostile environment for another user may be blocked”.
In a further response, Gregory Maxwell, a volunteer administrator on Wikimedia Commons, made a formal request to the editorial community that Coetzee’s access to administrator tools on Commons should be revoked due to the prevailing circumstances. Maxwell noted that Coetzee “[did] not have the technically ability to permanently delete images”, but stated that Coetzee’s potential legal situation created a conflict of interest.
Sixteen minutes after Maxwell’s request, Coetzee’s “administrator” privileges were removed by a user in response to the request. Coetzee retains “administrator” privileges on the English-language Wikipedia, since none of the images exist on Wikipedia’s own website and therefore no conflict of interest exists on that site.
Legally, the central issue upon which the case depends is that copyright laws vary between countries. Under United States case law, where both the website and Coetzee are located, a photograph of a non-copyrighted two-dimensional picture (such as a very old portrait) is not capable of being copyrighted, and it may be freely distributed and used by anyone. Under UK law that point has not yet been decided, and the Gallery’s solicitors state that such photographs could potentially be subject to copyright in that country.
One major legal point upon which a case would hinge, should the NPG proceed to court, is a question of originality. The U.K.’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 defines in ¶ 1(a) that copyright is a right that subsists in “original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works” (emphasis added). The legal concept of originality here involves the simple origination of a work from an author, and does not include the notions of novelty or innovation that is often associated with the non-legal meaning of the word.
Whether an exact photographic reproduction of a work is an original work will be a point at issue. The NPG asserts that an exact photographic reproduction of a copyrighted work in another medium constitutes an original work, and this would be the basis for its action against Coetzee. This view has some support in U.K. case law. The decision of Walter v Lane held that exact transcriptions of speeches by journalists, in shorthand on reporter’s notepads, were original works, and thus copyrightable in themselves. The opinion by Hugh Laddie, Justice Laddie, in his book The Modern Law of Copyright, points out that photographs lie on a continuum, and that photographs can be simple copies, derivative works, or original works:
- “[…] it is submitted that a person who makes a photograph merely by placing a drawing or painting on the glass of a photocopying machine and pressing the button gets no copyright at all; but he might get a copyright if he employed skill and labour in assembling the thing to be photocopied, as where he made a montage.”
Various aspects of this continuum have already been explored in the courts. Justice Neuberger, in the decision at Antiquesportfolio.com v Rodney Fitch & Co. held that a photograph of a three-dimensional object would be copyrightable if some exercise of judgement of the photographer in matters of angle, lighting, film speed, and focus were involved. That exercise would create an original work. Justice Oliver similarly held, in Interlego v Tyco Industries, that “[i]t takes great skill, judgement and labour to produce a good copy by painting or to produce an enlarged photograph from a positive print, but no-one would reasonably contend that the copy, painting, or enlargement was an ‘original’ artistic work in which the copier is entitled to claim copyright. Skill, labour or judgement merely in the process of copying cannot confer originality.”.
In 2000 the Museums Copyright Group, a copyright lobbying group, commissioned a report and legal opinion on the implications of the Bridgeman case for the UK, which stated:
- “Revenue raised from reproduction fees and licensing is vital to museums to support their primary educational and curatorial objectives. Museums also rely on copyright in photographs of works of art to protect their collections from inaccurate reproduction and captioning… as a matter of principle, a photograph of an artistic work can qualify for copyright protection in English law”. The report concluded by advocating that “museums must continue to lobby” to protect their interests, to prevent inferior quality images of their collections being distributed, and “not least to protect a vital source of income”.
Several people and organizations in the U.K. have been awaiting a test case that directly addresses the issue of copyrightability of exact photographic reproductions of works in other media. The commonly cited legal case Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. found that there is no originality where the aim and the result is a faithful and exact reproduction of the original work. The case was heard twice in New York, once applying UK law and once applying US law. It cited the prior UK case of Interlego v Tyco Industries (1988) in which Lord Oliver stated that “Skill, labour or judgement merely in the process of copying cannot confer originality.”
- “What is important about a drawing is what is visually significant and the re-drawing of an existing drawing […] does not make it an original artistic work, however much labour and skill may have gone into the process of reproduction […]”
The Interlego judgement had itself drawn upon another UK case two years earlier, Coca-Cola Go’s Applications, in which the House of Lords drew attention to the “undesirability” of plaintiffs seeking to expand intellectual property law beyond the purpose of its creation in order to create an “undeserving monopoly”. It commented on this, that “To accord an independent artistic copyright to every such reproduction would be to enable the period of artistic copyright in what is, essentially, the same work to be extended indefinitely… ”
The Bridgeman case concluded that whether under UK or US law, such reproductions of copyright-expired material were not capable of being copyrighted.
The unsuccessful plaintiff, Bridgeman Art Library, stated in 2006 in written evidence to the House of Commons Committee on Culture, Media and Sport that it was “looking for a similar test case in the U.K. or Europe to fight which would strengthen our position”.
The National Portrait Gallery is a non-departmental public body based in London England and sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Founded in 1856, it houses a collection of portraits of historically important and famous British people. The gallery contains more than 11,000 portraits and 7,000 light-sensitive works in its Primary Collection, 320,000 in the Reference Collection, over 200,000 pictures and negatives in the Photographs Collection and a library of around 35,000 books and manuscripts. (More on the National Portrait Gallery here)
The gallery’s solicitors are Farrer & Co LLP, of London. Farrer’s clients have notably included the British Royal Family, in a case related to extracts from letters sent by Diana, Princess of Wales which were published in a book by ex-butler Paul Burrell. (In that case, the claim was deemed unlikely to succeed, as the extracts were not likely to be in breach of copyright law.)
Farrer & Co have close ties with industry interest groups related to copyright law. Peter Wienand, Head of Intellectual Property at Farrer & Co., is a member of the Executive body of the Museums Copyright Group, which is chaired by Tom Morgan, Head of Rights and Reproductions at the National Portrait Gallery. The Museums Copyright Group acts as a lobbying organization for “the interests and activities of museums and galleries in the area of [intellectual property rights]”, which reacted strongly against the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case.
Wikimedia Commons is a repository of images, media, and other material free for use by anyone in the world. It is operated by a community of 21,000 active volunteers, with specialist rights such as deletion and blocking restricted to around 270 experienced users in the community (known as “administrators”) who are trusted by the community to use them to enact the wishes and policies of the community. Commons is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a charitable body whose mission is to make available free knowledge and historic and other material which is legally distributable under US law. (More on Commons here)
The legal threat also sparked discussions of moral issues and issues of public policy in several Internet discussion fora, including Slashdot, over the weekend. One major public policy issue relates to how the public domain should be preserved.
Some of the public policy debate over the weekend has echoed earlier opinions presented by Kenneth Hamma, the executive director for Digital Policy at the J. Paul Getty Trust. Writing in D-Lib Magazine in November 2005, Hamma observed:
- “Art museums and many other collecting institutions in this country hold a trove of public-domain works of art. These are works whose age precludes continued protection under copyright law. The works are the result of and evidence for human creativity over thousands of years, an activity museums celebrate by their very existence. For reasons that seem too frequently unexamined, many museums erect barriers that contribute to keeping quality images of public domain works out of the hands of the general public, of educators, and of the general milieu of creativity. In restricting access, art museums effectively take a stand against the creativity they otherwise celebrate. This conflict arises as a result of the widely accepted practice of asserting rights in the images that the museums make of the public domain works of art in their collections.”
He also stated:
- “This resistance to free and unfettered access may well result from a seemingly well-grounded concern: many museums assume that an important part of their core business is the acquisition and management of rights in art works to maximum return on investment. That might be true in the case of the recording industry, but it should not be true for nonprofit institutions holding public domain art works; it is not even their secondary business. Indeed, restricting access seems all the more inappropriate when measured against a museum’s mission — a responsibility to provide public access. Their charitable, financial, and tax-exempt status demands such. The assertion of rights in public domain works of art — images that at their best closely replicate the values of the original work — differs in almost every way from the rights managed by the recording industry. Because museums and other similar collecting institutions are part of the private nonprofit sector, the obligation to treat assets as held in public trust should replace the for-profit goal. To do otherwise, undermines the very nature of what such institutions were created to do.”
Hamma observed in 2005 that “[w]hile examples of museums chasing down digital image miscreants are rare to non-existent, the expectation that museums might do so has had a stultifying effect on the development of digital image libraries for teaching and research.”
The NPG, which has been taking action with respect to these images since at least 2005, is a public body. It was established by Act of Parliament, the current Act being the Museums and Galleries Act 1992. In that Act, the NPG Board of Trustees is charged with maintaining “a collection of portraits of the most eminent persons in British history, of other works of art relevant to portraiture and of documents relating to those portraits and other works of art”. It also has the tasks of “secur[ing] that the portraits are exhibited to the public” and “generally promot[ing] the public’s enjoyment and understanding of portraiture of British persons and British history through portraiture both by means of the Board’s collection and by such other means as they consider appropriate”.
Several commentators have questioned how the NPG’s statutory goals align with its threat of legal action. Mike Masnick, founder of Techdirt, asked “The people who run the Gallery should be ashamed of themselves. They ought to go back and read their own mission statement[. …] How, exactly, does suing someone for getting those portraits more attention achieve that goal?” (external link Masnick’s). L. Sutherland of Bigmouthmedia asked “As the paintings of the NPG technically belong to the nation, does that mean that they should also belong to anyone that has access to a computer?”
Other public policy debates that have been sparked have included the applicability of U.K. courts, and U.K. law, to the actions of a U.S. citizen, residing in the U.S., uploading files to servers hosted in the U.S.. Two major schools of thought have emerged. Both see the issue as encroachment of one legal system upon another. But they differ as to which system is encroaching. One view is that the free culture movement is attempting to impose the values and laws of the U.S. legal system, including its case law such as Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., upon the rest of the world. Another view is that a U.K. institution is attempting to control, through legal action, the actions of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil.
David Gerard, former Press Officer for Wikimedia UK, the U.K. chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation, which has been involved with the “Wikipedia Loves Art” contest to create free content photographs of exhibits at the Victoria and Albert Museum, stated on Slashdot that “The NPG actually acknowledges in their letter that the poster’s actions were entirely legal in America, and that they’re making a threat just because they think they can. The Wikimedia community and the WMF are absolutely on the side of these public domain images remaining in the public domain. The NPG will be getting radioactive publicity from this. Imagine the NPG being known to American tourists as somewhere that sues Americans just because it thinks it can.”
Benjamin Crowell, a physics teacher at Fullerton College in California, stated that he had received a letter from the Copyright Officer at the NPG in 2004, with respect to the picture of the portrait of Isaac Newton used in his physics textbooks, that he publishes in the U.S. under a free content copyright licence, to which he had replied with a pointer to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp..
The Wikimedia Foundation takes a similar stance. Erik Möller, the Deputy Director of the US-based Wikimedia Foundation wrote in 2008 that “we’ve consistently held that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing purposes”.
Contacted over the weekend, the NPG issued a statement to Wikinews:
- “The National Portrait Gallery is very strongly committed to giving access to its Collection. In the past five years the Gallery has spent around £1 million digitising its Collection to make it widely available for study and enjoyment. We have so far made available on our website more than 60,000 digital images, which have attracted millions of users, and we believe this extensive programme is of great public benefit.
- “The Gallery supports Wikipedia in its aim of making knowledge widely available and we would be happy for the site to use our low-resolution images, sufficient for most forms of public access, subject to safeguards. However, in March 2009 over 3000 high-resolution files were appropriated from the National Portrait Gallery website and published on Wikipedia without permission.
- “The Gallery is very concerned that potential loss of licensing income from the high-resolution files threatens its ability to reinvest in its digitisation programme and so make further images available. It is one of the Gallery’s primary purposes to make as much of the Collection available as possible for the public to view.
- “Digitisation involves huge costs including research, cataloguing, conservation and highly-skilled photography. Images then need to be made available on the Gallery website as part of a structured and authoritative database. To date, Wikipedia has not responded to our requests to discuss the issue and so the National Portrait Gallery has been obliged to issue a lawyer’s letter. The Gallery remains willing to enter into a dialogue with Wikipedia.
In fact, Matthew Bailey, the Gallery’s (then) Assistant Picture Library Manager, had already once been in a similar dialogue. Ryan Kaldari, an amateur photographer from Nashville, Tennessee, who also volunteers at the Wikimedia Commons, states that he was in correspondence with Bailey in October 2006. In that correspondence, according to Kaldari, he and Bailey failed to conclude any arrangement.
Jay Walsh, the Head of Communications for the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts the Commons, called the gallery’s actions “unfortunate” in the Foundation’s statement, issued on Tuesday July 14:
- “The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. To that end, we have very productive working relationships with a number of galleries, archives, museums and libraries around the world, who join with us to make their educational materials available to the public.
- “The Wikimedia Foundation does not control user behavior, nor have we reviewed every action taken by that user. Nonetheless, it is our general understanding that the user in question has behaved in accordance with our mission, with the general goal of making public domain materials available via our Wikimedia Commons project, and in accordance with applicable law.”
The Foundation added in its statement that as far as it was aware, the NPG had not attempted “constructive dialogue”, and that the volunteer community was presently discussing the matter independently.
In part, the lack of past agreement may have been because of a misunderstanding by the National Portrait Gallery of Commons and Wikipedia’s free content mandate; and of the differences between Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, the Wikimedia Commons, and the individual volunteer workers who participate on the various projects supported by the Foundation.
Like Coetzee, Ryan Kaldari is a volunteer worker who does not represent Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Commons. (Such representation is impossible. Both Wikipedia and the Commons are endeavours supported by the Wikimedia Foundation, and not organizations in themselves.) Nor, again like Coetzee, does he represent the Wikimedia Foundation.
Kaldari states that he explained the free content mandate to Bailey. Bailey had, according to copies of his messages provided by Kaldari, offered content to Wikipedia (naming as an example the photograph of John Opie‘s 1797 portrait of Mary Wollstonecraft, whose copyright term has since expired) but on condition that it not be free content, but would be subject to restrictions on its distribution that would have made it impossible to use by any of the many organizations that make use of Wikipedia articles and the Commons repository, in the way that their site-wide “usable by anyone” licences ensures.
The proposed restrictions would have also made it impossible to host the images on Wikimedia Commons. The image of the National Portrait Gallery in this article, above, is one such free content image; it was provided and uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation Licence, and is thus able to be used and republished not only on Wikipedia but also on Wikinews, on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, as well as by anyone in the world, subject to the terms of the GFDL, a license that guarantees attribution is provided to the creators of the image.
As Commons has grown, many other organizations have come to different arrangements with volunteers who work at the Wikimedia Commons and at Wikipedia. For example, in February 2009, fifteen international museums including the Brooklyn Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum established a month-long competition where users were invited to visit in small teams and take high quality photographs of their non-copyright paintings and other exhibits, for upload to Wikimedia Commons and similar websites (with restrictions as to equipment, required in order to conserve the exhibits), as part of the “Wikipedia Loves Art” contest.
Approached for comment by Wikinews, Jim Killock, the executive director of the Open Rights Group, said “It’s pretty clear that these images themselves should be in the public domain. There is a clear public interest in making sure paintings and other works are usable by anyone once their term of copyright expires. This is what US courts have recognised, whatever the situation in UK law.”
The Digital Britain report, issued by the U.K.’s Department for Culture, Media, and Sport in June 2009, stated that “Public cultural institutions like Tate, the Royal Opera House, the RSC, the Film Council and many other museums, libraries, archives and galleries around the country now reach a wider public online.” Culture minster Ben Bradshaw was also approached by Wikinews for comment on the public policy issues surrounding the on-line availability of works in the public domain held in galleries, re-raised by the NPG’s threat of legal action, but had not responded by publication time.