Donald Trump elected US president

">
Donald Trump elected US president

Friday, November 11, 2016

On Tuesday, Republican Donald Trump won the 2016 United States presidential election. Republicans also kept control of both houses of Congress. Trump is to take the presidential oath in January.

Trump won at least 290 electoral votes, while Clinton won 228, according to the AP (Associated Press) — 270 were required vote to win the election — though Clinton won more national popular votes, 47.7% compared to Trump’s 47.4%. Trump won the crucial electoral votes of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. The electors of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin had not supported a Republican presidential nominee for more than a quarter century, but in this election between them they provided Trump 30 electoral votes.

According to law, the citizens vote for an elector in the state who promises to vote for a particular candidate. In most states, the candidate who wins most votes in a state wins all electors of the state. Different states have varying numbers of electors, which depend on the state’s population. Since there are 538 electors in the US, one needs to win an absolute majority of the electors, that is, at least 270. Due to the electoral college, a candidate can win the presidential election even if he/she receives lesser national popular vote.

In her concession speech on Wednesday, Hillary Clinton said, “We owe him [Donald Trump] an open mind and a chance to lead.” Clinton also said, “We’ve spent a year and a half, bringing together millions of people from every corner of our country to say with one voice that We believe that the American Dream is big enough for everyone, for people of all races and religions, for men and women, for immigrants, for LGBT people, and people with disabilities; for everyone.”

President Barack Obama had called Trump “uniquely unqualified” during the election campaign, but, after the president-elect victory of Trump, Obama met him in the White House yesterday and said, “My number one priority in the coming two months is to try to facilitate a transition that ensures our president-elect is successful.” After the meeting, Trump tweeted, “A fantastic day in D.C. Met with President Obama for first time. Really good meeting, great chemistry. Melania liked Mrs. O [Michelle Obama] a lot!”

Following the unexpected result of the election, people protested in various US cities, often chanting “Not my president”. On Wednesday, more than 60 people were arrested in New York, and a crowd blocked the entrance of Chicago’s Trump Tower. Lily Morton, a 17-year-old student protester, said yesterday, “This generation deserves better than Donald Trump […] The queer people, colored people, women, girls, everyone that is going to be affected by this, we need to protest to help them. There is still love in this country.”

During the voting, huge traffic on the Canadian immigration website resulted in a site crash, officials said. Justin Trudeau tweeted, “I’ve just spoken with President-elect Trump – and we agreed to meet soon to keep building the Canada-US relationship.” ((fr)) French language: Je viens de parler au président élu Trump; nous avons convenu de nous rencontrer bientôt pour continuer à bâtir la relation Canada-É. U.

Last year, after the Paris attack in November, Trump commented on Muslims saying, “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and a complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.” He also said, “our country can not be the victim of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in jihad.” But after winning the president-elect, the statement on Trump’s website was removed, and it redirected to the donation page.

Trump partisans defended Trump saying those proposed actions were to insure safety rather than targeting any religion. Though the statement disappeared from the web site, various defences of it are still there.

Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto congratulated Donald Trump and tweeted, “I congratulate the US on its electoral process and reiterate to @realDonaldTrump [Donald Trump] our willingness to work together for our bilateral relationship.” ((es)) Spanish language: Felicito a EUA por su proceso electoral y le reitero a @realDonaldTrump [Donald Trump] la disposición de trabajar juntos en favor de la relación bilateral. . Mexican currency, the peso, dropped 13% in value as Trump won. Trump had proposed to abandon the trilateral US–Mexico–Canada NAFTA agreement (North American Free Trade Agreement) and to build a wall at the US–Mexico border. Mexican Foreign Minister Claudia Ruiz Massieu said Mexico would not pay for this wall.

Previously in 2016, Mexico reinforced the peso three times by increasing its benchmark interest rate.

70-year-old Donald Trump will be the oldest US president to first enter the office. No woman has ever been the US president.

228 20 290
Hillary Clinton Not yet determined Donald Trump

Candidates Votes Vote share  % votes
Donald J Trump 60,072,551
47.4%
47.4%
Hillary Clinton 60,467,601
47.7%
47.7%
Other 6,180,948
4.8%
4.8%

Saturn’s rings are much older than previously thought

">
Saturn’s rings are much older than previously thought

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Recent scans on the planet Saturn by the space probe Cassini–Huygens have shown that the planet’s rings are much older than previously thought. Recent data says they may be as old as the solar system itself.

The new scans have indicated that the rings are likely three to five billion years old, and will probably be around for billions of years longer. Scientists previously thought the rings to be only about 100 million years old.

“Despite what was thought after the [1970s] Voyager investigations of Saturn – that Saturn’s rings might be very youthful, perhaps only as ancient as the dinosaurs – we have results that show the rings could have lasted as long as the Solar System and maybe will be around for billions of years. Recycling allows the rings to be as old as the solar system although continually changing,” said researcher Professor Larry Esposito.

The determination was made when Cassini’s Ultraviolet Imaging Spectrograph (UVIS) analyzed the light from the Sun reflecting off particles in the rings of all different sizes. The data had shown that there was a lot more clumpy material and as much as three times more mass than what was previously found in the Voyager missions.

Scientists assumed that particles from an exploding comet may have caused the rings to form, but the new data says that it is unlikely to be the case, because the particles are all of different ages.

“Although the Voyager observations indicated Saturn’s rings were youthful, Cassini shows even younger ages; and because we see such transient, dynamic phenomena in the rings we are able to reach the paradoxical conclusion – because the rings appear so young, they may actually be as old as the Solar System,” added Esposito.

Cassini is operated jointly by NASA and the European Space Agency.

Congressman Cunningham admits taking bribes

">
Congressman Cunningham admits taking bribes

Monday, November 28, 2005

U.S. Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham (RCA) pled guilty today to conspiring to take bribes in exchange for using his influence as a member of the House Appropriations Committee to help a defense contractor get business. In total he pled guilty to one count of income tax evasion and four counts of conspiracy, namely mail fraud, wire fraud, bribery of public official and accepting bribes. U.S. District judge Larry A. Burns scheduled Cunnigham to be sentenced on February 27. He is facing up to 10 years in prison and nearly $500,000 in fines, as well as forfeiture of unspecified amounts of cash and property.

In the court hearing, Cunningham admitted to accepting “bribes in exchange for performance of official duties” between “the year 2000 and June of 2005”, taking “both cash payments and payments in kind” and following up by “trying to influence the Defense Department”.

The federal investigation against Cunningham was triggered by his sale of his California residence to defense contractor Mitchell Wade in late 2003. However, Wade never moved in and sold the house at a $700,000 loss three quarters of a year later. At the same time Wade’s company MZM won tens of millions of dollars in defense contracts. Subsequent investigations discovered more questionable business transactions, including interactions with the defense contractor ADCS. In his plea agreement he testified that, among other charges, he “demanded, sought and received at least $2.4 million in illicit payments and benefits from his co-conspirators in various forms, including cash, checks, meals, travel, lodging, furnishings, antiques, rugs, yacht club fees, boat repairs and improvements, moving expenses, cars and boats.”

Cunningham announced his resignation after the hearing. In a written statement released by his law firm O’Melveny & Myers LLP he declared “The truth is — I broke the law, concealed my conduct, and disgraced my high office. I know that I will forfeit my freedom, my reputation, my worldly possessions, and most importantly, the trust of my friends and family.”

Wikinews interviews Ubuntu developer Fabrice

">
Wikinews interviews Ubuntu developer Fabrice
October 17th, 2017 in Uncategorized | No Comments

Saturday, October 9, 2010

The 10.10 version of Ubuntu (codename Maverick Merkaat), a free operative system is to be released in the next few days. French Wikinews contributor Savant-fou (Baptiste) has interviewed Fabrice (fabrice_sp on Ubuntu), an Ubuntu’s MOTU (Master Of The Universe), member of the development team of the operative system.

Ubuntu is a computer operating system, based on Debian, which is created collaboratively by thousands of people. There are three official Ubuntu versions: Ubuntu Desktop Edition (for desktop and laptop PCs); Ubuntu Netbook Edition (for netbooks); and Ubuntu Server Edition (for use in servers).

Relish Your Honeymoon With Romantic Liberation Via Mia Airport Transportation Service}

October 17th, 2017 in Gps Tracking | No Comments

Click Here To Find Out More About:

Relish Your Honeymoon with Romantic-Liberation via MIA Airport Transportation Service

by

Nationwidecar

As you plan your wedding to the love of your life, you’ll likely find it difficult to even consider every detail that requires your attention. As you book transportation for the wedding, remember that the honeymoon trip will also require transport. In order to enjoy a liberating, romantic ride to bookend the honeymoon, enhancing and facilitating romantic intentions, MIA Airport transportation service offers an affordable and more than adequate solution.

Little Effort for High Reward

Advancing your honeymoon travel arrangements beyond that of a simple ride doesn’t require hours of effort or wads of cash. For a minimal price and with a quick online booking, MIA car service will deliver you for honeymoon plans in a high quality, freeing manner. Not only can you make reservations easily, you can modify your service with a quick communication at any time to our 24/7 customer service staff. If you’ve forgotten to deal with this matter and the wedding is night, no worries. We invite accommodation requests with limited notice, provide quick billing, and will honor all requests as possible.

YouTube Preview Image

Upgraded Transport for a Once in a Lifetime Ride

With a varied fleet of service-providing vehicles, we’re able to meet all sorts of travel needs. Single riders, couples, and even large groups can find appropriate and luxurious transportation at the tips of their fingers. This availability includes your honeymoon trip needs. As you ride to the airport in executive MIA car service, you’ll appreciate the amenities, cleanliness, and reliability of our fully insured vehicles. We make sure that you get what’s expected and more when you ride with us.

Romance-Enhancing Chauffeured Service

Your honeymoon experience can be made even better with chauffeured service. Similar to the quality of our vehicles, our drivers are professionals who know the roadways, understand the importance of courtesy, and clear background and drug monitoring procedures. You and your new spouse will have the liberty to romantically gaze into one another’s eyes, relishing the joy of the time, by allowing your provided driver to deal with the hassles of airport transportation. MSP Car Service will make your honeymoon trip better, and your romantic intentions will progress without stress.

Enhance the freedom to be romantic as you begin and end your honeymoon travel with travel arrangements that are easy, affordable, suitable, and liberating. We will provide the right ride with the best driver and 24-hour customer service. Make your honeymoon remarkable with romantic memories, not travel-induced stress.

Dependable Machines Make for Dependable Service

Imagine the disaster that would occur on your wedding day if a problem arose with your motor coach rentals. Your guests would be frustrated; you would be embarrassed; and you could even miss your slot at the second venue. We realize the scope of this disaster, so we avoid it at all costs. We maintain our machines well and comprehensively insure, license, and bond each one. Older vehicles have no place in our fleet, and we check for issues and deeply clean all rides. Your wedding will proceed without a hitch irrespective of your selection from among our collection of automobiles.

Taking a few moments to reserve your transportation is all that it takes to enjoy confidence in your chosen wedding conveyance. This small investment, early in the planning stages, will give you extra time to focus on other wedding requirements. No matter the type of plans that you have for your nuptials, enjoy our services, and we’ll fulfill your preferences and requests in a manner worthy of your significant day.

Source: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/relish-your-honeymoon-romantic-liberation-via-mia-airport-car?published=t

The author wants to give you information about the party bus services that is available around the clock,

we provide customer service individualized to our guests and understand that our duty is to meet the needs of our customers. Gets today Nationwiidecar.com services at affordable prices.

Article Source:

eArticlesOnline.com

}

World’s cheapest car launched in India, will go on sale in April

">
World’s cheapest car launched in India, will go on sale in April
October 17th, 2017 in Uncategorized | No Comments

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

The world’s least expensive car, the Tata Nano, has been launched in India. It will go on sale in April, and will start delivery in July. The automobile costs only 100,000 Indian rupees, or just under US$2,000.

“We are at the gates offering a new form of transportation to the people of India, and later I hope other markets as well,” said the chairman of the auto firm, Ratan Tata, calling the vehicle a “milestone.”

“From the drawing board to its commercial launch, the car has overcome several challenges,” Tata said. “I hope it will provide safe, affordable four-wheel transportation to families who till now have not been able to own a car.

“This was never conceived as the cheapest car, but as providing transport to those people who never owned a car,” Tata said. “Driven mainly by the change in demand that we see elsewhere in the world, we suddenly felt we had a product that could be of considerable interest as a low-cost product in western Europe, eastern Europe, the UK and even the U.S.”

The Tata Nano is a four-door vehicle, and is 3 metres long, 1.5 m wide, and 1.5 m tall. It is equipped with a 33 bhp, 624 cc engine at the rear. No radio, airbags, power steering, or air conditioning are available in the basic model, although upgrades are available. The Nano Europa, a slightly larger European version of the car, is expected in 2011.

According to Ravi Kant, the managing director at Tata Motors, the first 100,000 people to receive a Nano would be chosen from the initial orders by a ballot.

An auto analyst for Bombay’s Angel Broking, Vaishali Jajoo, predicted that the Nano will add only three percent to Tata’s revenues even if it can sell a quarter of a million such cars per annum.

“That doesn’t make a significant difference to the top line,” Jajoo said. “And for the bottom line, it will take five to six years to break even.”

Environmentalists say that the car will exacerbate traffic problems already rife in India, and help increase pollution levels. Tata, however, stated that its vehicle is the least polluting car in the country.

‘Purity’ ring case taken to High Court

">
‘Purity’ ring case taken to High Court
October 17th, 2017 in Uncategorized | No Comments

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Lydia Playfoot, a 16 year old schoolgirl from West Sussex, England, has been faced with expulsion by her school, Millais School of Horsham, for wearing a purity ring that symbolises her dedication to chastity.

Her case, that she should be allowed to wear the ring as it is an “expression of [her] faith and should be exempt from the school’s rules on wearing jewelery”, was taken to the High Court on Friday. Judgement in the case was reserved for a future date.

This case echoes a decision in a case last year. The Law Lords rejected Shabina Begum‘s, former pupil of Denbigh High School, in Luton, Bedfordshire, appeal to wear a Muslim Jilbab to school.

Miss Playfoot spoke to BBC Radio regarding the case. She said “Muslims are allowed to wear headscarves and other faiths can wear bangles and other types of jewellery. It feels like Christians are being discriminated against.” Her lawyers have argued that her right to wear the ring as a symbol of faith is upheld by the Human Rights Act 1998

How To Start An Exercise Program}

October 16th, 2017 in Fitness Equipment | No Comments

Click Here To Find Out More About:

How to Start an Exercise Program

by

Jordan Rocksmith

Most people understand that regular exercise is an important part of staying healthy. Exercise helps your body fight off diseases while controlling your weight and stress. However, dont think that you have to spend an hour in the gym every day to reap the benefits of regular exercise. Every little bit helps! If youre new to working out, heres what you need to know to get started.

Talk to Your Doctor

The first thing you should do before starting any exercise program is talk to your doctor. Clinics like Elite Care of Central Florida can help you develop a healthy exercise plan so you wont accidentally injure yourself by working yourself too hard. Your doctor can also make sure you dont have any underlying medical problems that could be exacerbated by too much physical exertion.

Get the Right Equipment

YouTube Preview Image

The right equipment keeps you from getting hurt as you exercise. For most people, this means buying supportive footwear that will prevent chronic leg and back pain. If you plan on starting a more physical sport such as football or mountain biking, be sure to use extra protective gear to protect yourself against falls and other scrapes.

Eat Right

While eating a healthy diet is always important, it becomes even more so when you are working out. Exercising requires a lot of nutrients to repair and strengthen your body. Be sure to eat a diet full of fruits and vegetables and limit items like sugars and carbohydrates. Youll feel more alert and energized, and your body will be more ready to take on your next workout.

Find a Partner

Studies have shown that more people keep up with their exercise routines when they are working out with a partner. A workout partner keeps you motivated and helps hold you accountable, so youre less likely to cheat or skip days. Its also a great chance to catch up with a friend, making your workout feel less like work. If you dont know anyone who wants to exercise with you, consider joining a local biking, hiking, or boating club.

Build Up Gradually

Its easy to be intimidated when you walk into a gym and see other peoples routines. However, dont be fooled into thinking you have to keep pace with them: it took them years to get to where they are. Start slow and work your way to more weight, more time, or more repetitions as you feel able. Even if you just take a walk around your block every day, its a place to start.

Incorporate Exercise into Your Daily Routine

Many people hesitate to start an exercise routine because they feel they dont have enough time for one. If you have a busy schedule, find ways to incorporate physical activities into your daily routine. Bike to work or park a little further away from the office. During your lunch break, take a quick walk around the block or practice yoga in your office. When you get home from work, take a short bike ride or spend a few minutes on an elliptical machine to clear your head instead of going for a drink.

Track Your Progress

Start a journal or chart to keep track of your workouts. This is a great way to see how youre progressing and encourage yourself to keep up the good work. Make a note of any aches or pains you experience. You should also check in regularly with your doctor to let him know how your workouts are progressing. Visit a clinic like Elite Care of Central Florida for regular checkups so your doctor can keep track of your progress and make sure you arent overdoing it.

Elite Care of Central Florida

are dedicated to providing quality care for your whole family. Our goal is to build long-term relationships with you to create a continuity of care throughout your adulthood. Visit

elite care of central florida

today!

Article Source:

How to Start an Exercise Program
}

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

">
U.K. National Portrait Gallery threatens U.S. citizen with legal action over Wikimedia images
October 16th, 2017 in Uncategorized | No Comments

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 217.207.85.50, 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 picturelibrary@npg.org.uk 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.

United States’ production of new books declining

">
United States’ production of new books declining
October 16th, 2017 in Uncategorized | No Comments

Sunday, June 18, 2006

The World Cup is not the only international competition going on this summer. With vacation and beach reading season in full swing, American readers find themselves trailing their reading counterparts across the pond.

For the first time in five years, American production of new book titles trails that of Great Britain, a country of one-fifth the population of the USA, the Kansas City Star recently reported. Last year, production of new titles in the UK surpassed 206,000, compared with 172,000 in America.

Bowker, a consulting firm following the publishing industry, suspects that as America’s wealth increases, more entertainment options compete with books for Americans’ leisure time. The figure does not necessarily reflect whether Americans read books less than Brits, and does not, for example, track the comparative reading of reprints and classics.