User talk:Laslawyer

Graham Ovenden[edit]

How much of the section about the hearing before Magistrate Zachary Carter is published? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section about the hearing before Magistrate Carter was published in the book States of Grace, listed among the published books containing Ovenden's work. It appears in the Publisher's Note at the back of the book. Let me know if there is anything else you would like to know. :) Laslawyer (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)laslawyer[reply]

I don't understand why you (or someone) removed the Tate Gallery's statement explaining why Ovenden's works were removed. I can provide you with a copy of the original email. What do you suggest? Laslawyer (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)laslawyer[reply]

If it only appears in an e-mail, it's unusable per Wikipedia's original research and verifiability policies (see WP:NOR and WP:V). Also, a direct involvement with sending the e-mail is problematical per the conflict of interest guideline. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Feshitan ✆

to me

show details Dec 9 (3 days ago)

Dear Mr Stanley,

I write further to your recent query about the removal of the images of works by the artist Graham Ovenden from Tate Online.

As you may be aware, in the current Pop Life exhibition at Tate Modern, Tate temporarily closed the room displaying "Spiritual America" (1983) by Richard Prince following a visit by police officers from the Obscene Publications Unit on Wednesday 30 September 2009. The police advised Tate that the work may be "indecent" under the Protection of Children Act 1978 and that Tate may have committed an offence under that Act. The police advised that if the work were not taken down from display and if the catalogue containing the image was not removed from sale that a prosecution would be considered. In the circumstances, Tate decided that it had no option but to withdraw the work from display and pending further legal clarification has redacted the image from the Pop Life catalogue. As prima facie similar issues are relevant to the Ovenden images, on 8 October 2009 Tate also decided to remove Ovenden's works temporarily from Tate Online, again pending legal clarification.

With regard to the copyright notice which appeared following the removal of the Ovenden images, this was a default message generated by the IT department which was corrected as soon as it was noted.

Yours sincerely

Tara Feshitan Lawyer +44(0) 20 7887 3942

www.tate.org.uk

(This is the email explanation. Laslawyer (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)laslawyer)[reply]

"If it only appears in an e-mail, it's unusable per Wikipedia's original research and verifiability policies (see WP:NOR and WP:V). Also, a direct involvement with sending the e-mail is problematical per the conflict of interest guideline. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)"

Okay, thanks for making that clear. I'll wait until the mainstream press gets to it. Laslawyer (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)laslawyer[reply]