Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Äldre Västgötalagen.jpg: Difference between revisions

This image that was photographed by the Royal Library in Stockholm is not public domain in Sweden, per Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Nordic_countries Fred J 18:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. The actual photos are (c) 50 years from creation. Same problem with Image:B74detail.jpg and Image:ScanianLaw B74.jpg (both are (c) the Royal Library of Stockholm.) And while we're at it, axe Image:Codex Holmiensis CE 1350.jpg, Image:Scania Churchlaw.jpg, Image:CodexRunicus.jpeg and the derived Image:Codex Runicus - Drømde mik en drøm i nat.jpg. All four photos are (c) by the Royal Library of Denmark. Image:Saxo original 001.jpg must also come from this source. Copyright protection has only expired for any such photo taken before 1 Jan 1970 (Denmark) / 1 Jan 1969 (Sweden). Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate saying it, but Image:Grundloven-1849-forside.jpg must fall into this category as well. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Please note that Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag is often ignored in deletion debates, for instance in Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Jorunn (uploaders request). --Kjetil r 01:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then editors deliberately violate local laws. Images on Commons have to be free in both the country of origin and the U.S. Anybody in Denmark (and most of Europe) reusing the Danish images I've listed before will do so violating the copyright of the photographer as specified in § 70 of the Danish Copyright Act. No Danish court has made a verdict to the contrary. Otherwise, Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia will need to be changed to "Content on Wikimedia Commons is free to be used on websites hosted in the U.S. by U.S. citizens. Use in other countries and jurisdictions may be a violation of local laws." If a kid in Scandinavia uses such images somewhere else than on a website hosted in the U.S. or Germany, that will mean a violation of the copyright law of his own country. PD-art is claimed to be valid in the U.S. (1 ruling by 1 judge) and in Germany (1 ruling by 1 judge). In no country do we have such a ruling on Supreme Court level, and we've so far been unable to find corresponding verdicts in Scandinavian law. If you know any, I'm all ears. The material presented on the talk page of "When to use the PD-art tag" states that this material is copyrighted:

(quote)

Om skyddstiden löpt ut för de klassiska konstverken, så [är de] fria verk. Det gör att svaret koncentrerar sig på skyddet för fotografierna och fotografen. Alla typer av fotografier är skyddade.

http://www.legalahandboken.netuniversity.se/fragor/undervisning/upphovsratt/anvand_bild/bilder7.html (notice that the website is "legalahandboken.netuniversity.se", with questions being answered by "Professor Cecilia Magnusson Sjöberg, och doktoranderna Katarina Renman Claesson och Sanna Wolk, från Juridiska institutionen vid Stockholms universitet," [1] [Stockholm University, Department of Law]

[..] ett fotografi av det raka strecket som kanske inte är särskilt originell ändå har ett skydd som bild i 50 år efter knäppet.

http://www.fotosidan.se/expertqa/view.htm?ID=4598

Fråga:

Har ett fotografi som man tar på ett berömt konstverk av en sedan länge död konstnär fortsatt upphovsrättsligt skydd?

Svar:

För att ett fotografi skall få upphovsrättsligt skydd måste det ha verkshöjd och då gäller samma förutsättningar som för alla andra konstnärliga verk. Emellertid har en fotograf även vissa rättigheter till ett fotografi som inte har verkshöjd. Detta skydd gäller oavsett vad bilden föreställer. Skyddet ger fotografen rätt att mångfaldiga bilden och att göra den tillgänglig för allmänheten. Denna rätt gäller dock endast under femtio år (och inte sjuttio), räknat från det år då bilden framställdes.

http://www.kb.se/BIBSAM/juridik/fos/fotografi.htm [Royal Library of Sweden]

(orig. posted by Fred J 14:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Those of you who can read Norwegian should read no:Wikipedia-diskusjon:Retningslinjer_for_billedbruk/Gammel_versjon#Fotografier_av_gamle_kunstverk. Several authoritative sources claim that photos of paintings are «simple photographs» and thus protected for 50 years. --Kjetil r 15:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unquote)

Or the website of the Danish Ministry of Culture: "Der stilles ikke noget objektivt nyhedskrav, idet to mere eller mindre identiske værker, der er frembragt uafhængigt af hinanden (dobbeltfrembringelser), kan principielt beskyttes hvert for sig. Ophavsretten er med an­dre ord ikke en prioritetsbeskyttelse. Sandsynligheden for dobbeltfrembringelser er imidlertid i praksis en vigtig måle­stok for, om der foreligger værkshøjde – jo større sandsynlighed for dobbeltfrembringelse, jo større sandsynlighed for, at værkshøjdekravet ikke er opfyldt. " ( = There is no objective demand for novelty, as two more or less identical works (dobbeltfrembringelser) created independently of each other can both be protected. But the possibility of the creation of identical works, is - in practice - an important yardstick for whether Schöpfungshöhe has been reached or not. The higher the probability of producing identical works, the higher probability that any such works cannot be considered to have reached Schöpfungshöhe.") [2]

The last sentence is merely a phrase to the effect that such images will "merely" fall under the 50 year clause but not the 70 year pma clause. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per [3]. Let us delete Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Nordic_countries instead. Kjetil r 19:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Replace with Image:Västgötalagen blad 21.jpg who is the same page from the same law, but was published in 1924. Thuresson 15:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In conjunction with this deletion request, I'd like to vent my personal frustration about the rigidity of Swedish copyright laws. Currently they render it virtually impossible for anyone to freely use even centuries-old public domain material simply because no one willing to release photos of books like these under a copyleft license is likely to get the chance to photograph it. Since neither libraries, museums or similar institutions don't seem too keen on releasing anything without slapping restrictions on usage, the door is effectively slammed shut on displaying public domain art on Wikipedia. As for the deletion discussion itself, I'd like to point out that it's difficult to determine the details of this picture since the Royal Library has removed it from their site. I was the one who uploaded it, but I can't recall the exact info. However, is it possible that this is in fact not a photo but a scan? If so, it should be able to stay here under a public domain license. Peter ^Isotalo 17:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the rigidity of the copyright law. Deletion requests such as this show how silly many copyright laws are.

Anyways, it is unlikely to be a scan. Here you can see the page together with some other material at KB. All of them look like photographs, since they clearly have shadows.

Fred J (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Swedish institutions will insist on their copyright in eternity if we are just doing what they tell us to do, no matter what any laws say. While I was still a press contact on the Swedish Wikipedia I was contacted regarding copyright on Image:Drottning Kristina av Sverige.jpg, and they insisted repeatedly the image should be deleted until I managed to make clear I wouldn't delete it personally on the spot (the image was still on the Swedish wikipedia at the time because there is no source given) - then they just changed their position to: "OK, never mind". As long we let them choose to allow to let us use these kind of images or not, they are going to say no. The entire issue keeps falling back on how to define "originality" (verkshöjd) and "technical reproduction". In this case it requires an expert and some guessing to determine if it is a scan or a photo.
  Mats Halldin 18:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]