Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Jorunn (uploaders request)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Images of Jorunn (uploaders request)

[edit]

discussion (edit heading)

[edit]

At the time of uploading these images were thought to be free because they are photographic copies of paintings that are PD due to age. According to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Nordic_countries this is wrong, and the images are violating the copyright of the photographers. --Jorunn 18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that this not a copyright infringement? Then why transfer? Or are you saying it is--and trying to breach it solely the US? Transfering imaging is hardly ever a solution. Here it clearly isn't!! --Ibn Battuta 16:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the idea is: In en-Wikipedia, the images have to comply with the US law only. There we can use Bridgeman Art Library vs. Corel Corporation, as the photographs do not enjoy copyright protection. Here, on the Commons, we require that the images are PD in the source country, too. --MPorciusCato 20:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments please?
The paintings have unknown photograph, we dont know who has taken the pictures and when and the art are in PD.---Nina- 17:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It always goes the other way, if we don't know the source, we assume that it is not ok. Kjetil r 21:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nina: Yes I also considered that some of the paintings might be of photos that are at least 50 years old. But several images are from a book published in the 1980's, for example Image:Blaaveis - G. Munthe 1891.jpg. I think that since the uploader nominated all his images, he should know where he got them from. Any photographical reproductions that can be proven to be more than 50 years old can of course stay on Wikipedia. / Fred J 22:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Image:Blaaveis - G. Munthe 1891.jpg is a photo by O. Væring. Their terms & conditions are here, they charge NOK 1500 ($250) per year for low resolution web usage. --Kjetil r 09:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I believe this is based on an incorrect interpretation of Norwegian copyright law, see Commons_talk:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Nordic_countries. Cnyborg 18:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because the photos are digital reproductions of paintings that are now in the free. There are some people in Norway who claims that all photos are work of art but I strongly believe such claims are without any real substance. The paintings are known, so there are no first publications after a redescovery, the work of art are the main motive. and the main motive are now in the free. Jeblad 20:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No-one is claiming that these photographs are works of art, just that they are photographs. Even non-artistic photographs get a copyright term of at least 50 years in Norway. Haukurth 05:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Haukurth, Photographic pictures ("fotografiske bilder" in Norwegian) are indeed copyright protected in Norway, regardless of what they depict. We're all clear that the original works of art are PD here, and the question here is whether these files represent "photographic pictures" or simply "digital reproductions" of the PD-works they depict. The term photographic picture has not (to my knowledge) been precisly defined legally. I'm arguing that a copy made via a camera (at that's what these images are) isn't a photographic picture any more than a photoscan is. It can't be the medium of processing that defines copyright.Finn Rindahl 11:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jeblad: Please refer to authoritative sources supporting your claims that photos are «digital reproductions» (I suppose you mean «eksemplarfremstilling»), as this view is rather unusual. --Kjetil r 08:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . In any case, please do not close this request yet as a keep. According to latest posts at Commons_talk:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Nordic_countries (by myself and Samulii), it is more likely than not that they are indeed copyright violations. / Fred J 22:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Krabbe-Knudsen: Fotografiske verk og fotografiske bilder, åndsverkloven § 1 og § 43a (CompLex 1/98, ISBN 82-518-3786-3), side 64:

Om man tar et fotografi av et maleri, vil dette være et fotografisk bilde etter åndsverkloven § 43a. Fotografiet har vern, men utnyttelsen av det vil avhenge av om maleriet er vernet. Uansett kan ingen anvende fotografiet selv om maleriet er falt i det fri. Vil en annen utnytte det, må han ha samtykke av fotografen. Alternativt kan han fotografere maleriet selv.

Ole-Andreas Rognstad i samarbeid med Birger Stuevold Lassen skriver i «Fragementer til en lærebok i opphavsrett» (Institutt for privatrett, UiO, stensilserie nr. 165 (2004)) side 146:

Dersom det er et åndsverk som f.eks. et maleri eller en tegning som er fotografert, vil resultatet være et eksemplar av både åndsverket og av det fotografiske bildet, og bruk av bildet kan bare skje dersom det er lovlig etter begge regelsett.

Therefore: A clear Delete. --Kjetil r 08:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next to certain probability: To scan, and make other use of another persons photograph is only legal for 50+ of photographic age. Art-photograps: 70+ after dying of artist. Photographic repro of paintings etc. goes on the 50yrs rule max. (dying and 70+ does not apply. This is craft, not art.)
Worst-case-scenario: Any work of art, where owner and photographer conspires, will be protected against PD-use for more than 120 years. (Law-makers may have made an oversight when making the rules, and we will need a Supreme Court (Høyesterett) sentencing to find out what is the law.)
Best case: To take a photograph of a well known picture is in itself a kind of mechanical procedure - yes, skill, knowledge and advancet technical apparatuses helps - but these are now more and more built-in features, of which we see no clear end - so this is like putting a graphic or draftsman work on a scanner. (Result improves with newer updates.) Scanner-copies cannot be considered photographs, since it is possible to robotize the process from putting a stack in the machine, via internal quality-control to receiving the finished copy. Main point: Scanners are sold without specific rules to what is "art" or not, and what use to put them.
I am afraid that the pessimistic wiew is the safer. But I seem to see no problem scanning art-work from books being 120 years or more. 70+ years seems also to be safe, exept with illustrations made specificly by long-living artists (death+70 rules). Repro-quality being what it was, we will have some pictures, but of worse resolution.
On the other hand: To take ones own photographs of PD-artworks can only be forbidden based on rules outside of the copyright-domain. Many museums say the flashlight may damage the paintings - so ok, use cameraprogram for available light and shoot away. Pics may need a good photo-editing-program to become acceptable, though. (Own experiences at home: It is possible even for fumblers.) My heart says to keep what we have, or move to safe storage, but my head says alas - lost case, and what do we do now? --Bjørn som tegner 11:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A reproduction is not a photographic work in legal sense, as far as I can see. Grrahnbahr 16:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't matter that it's not a work it's sufficient that it's a photograph. Above we have a quote from a Norwegian handbook on copyright law, written by a lawyer. It says plainly that photographs of paintings are protected. Do you have a quote from an authoritative source saying something else? Haukurth 17:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lars G. Norheim: FOTO- OG OPPHAVSRETTSLIGE SPØRSMÅL VED MUSEENE (.pdf) is pretty clear about how photos of works of art are protected as simple photographs (and some even as works of art[!]). See section 3.6.2 "Fotografier av kunstverk", page 53-54. --Kjetil r 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he deals with photographs of paintings and sculptures under the same heading. Previously he says: "Som et generelt holdepunkt – men heller ikke mer – kan det således sies at desto nærmere gjengivelsen ligger virkeligheten, desto lettere må fotografiet bedømmes som et bilde og ikke som et verk." Since we are most interested in photographs which closely represent reality I think we will be mostly dealing with simple photographs. Haukurth 10:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is when the book you use have no photocredit. Before 1995 there was spesial rules «Fotoloven» and this new «Åndsverksloven» have new rules regarding Photos. (lov 23 juni 1995 nr. 37 (se dens II, i kraft 30 juni 1995 iflg. res. 23 juni 1995 nr. 572 - som opphevet den tidligere lov om rett til fotografi av 17 juni 1960 nr 1)[1] I have books made before 1995 with no Photocredit what about them? ---Nina- 13:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As always at Wikipedia/Commons: If you don't know, assume that they are © all rights reserved. It is anyways completely irrelevant that there were different rules prior to 1995, the new law works retroactively. --Kjetil r 13:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No law is normally allowed to work retroactively, so why this? --Bjørn som tegner 18:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's retroactive and there's retroactive. A copyright law that criminalized behavior which happened in the past would run foul of normal legal standards but this doesn't. (It's still v. annoying, of course.) Haukurth 19:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Norwegian copyright law -- unlike for example the Swedish -- specifically applies to "åndsverk og andre arbeider fra før lovens ikrafttredelse." §60. / Fred J 20:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The photography law was revised 1995, and pics taken before revision follows older rules (e.g. to be freed 15 yrs after death, but no less than 25 yrs from date of taking). There seems to be no retroactivity there. I quote the treatise Kjetil r cites somewhere further up (Lars G Norheim). I only suffered through the first chapter, and may have missed something, but it seemed very clear on that point. It seems to me that the law-makers, with the provision "fra før lovens ikrafttreden" are hedging, so that works still under protection, are to enjoy the prolongation - but that, ladies & gents, is as far as a lawmaker can go and still follow the words of the Constitution. I don't remember which paragraph, but: "No Law is to be made to work retroactively" has been there since 1814. The honoured Guild of Legalese-speakers had quite a job interpreting our tax-decisions (often coming a little late) into being non-retroactive, but I seriously doubt their ability do manage that miracle more than once. --Bjørn som tegner 09:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Norheim does not say that the law does not work retroactively, it says that simple photos that were already free are not put under copyright again. Simple photos that were still copyrighted in 1995 got thair copyright terms extended. --Kjetil r 12:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Albert Edelfelt drawing Image:Albert Edelfelt - Sven Duva.jpg was first published in the 1890s and I made the digital reproduction with my own scanner. Jorunn, why have I not been notified of this deletion request? Which other contributors have not been notified? Thuresson 05:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you think about the rest of the images, which are mostly unsourced? --Kjetil r 08:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to go through all of them. Scans of drawings are fine. Since earlier reproductions of paper drawings most likely were also made by a photomechanical process (doesn't get this "photo right"), I think those could be kept. E.g. Image:Döbeln vid Jutas - teckning av Albert Edelfelt.jpg and Image:Gustav IV Adolf - teckning av Albert Edelfelt.jpg. However, paintings typically are reproduced by first photographing them (this gets a "photo right") and then reproducing that photo (this doesn't get a new protection). For example Image:Albert Edelfelt-Självporträtt.jpg or Image:Albert Edelfelt-Gata i Borgå.jpg. Such images should go, unless it can be shown that the photograph must have been made so long ago that this "photo right" has expired. If the photographer or the year the photo was taken cannot be found, assume that the photo was taken in the year of the original publication of the reproduction of the photo. Lupo 13:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For Norway, we may have a small bolthole in the law, by using the "right of quotation". A serious purpose (like us?) is granted the right to quote what is considered necessary to support whatever subject is tabled. Now we want to illustrate articles, but may have inadverently have stepped upon someone elses protected rights. So what we do is to reduce the number of pixels to the minimum necessary to illustrate the PD-ed work in a general way and delete the sinful ones. Some text about original autor may be at good thing, though. Alternatively, a razzia with cameras on available light-programs. Always assuming the paintings being in the free.--Bjørn som tegner 08:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for a while. The amount of work involved in going through each and every picture is enormous. However, it must be done. Those images that are unsourced must be nominated individually and their uploaders notified. At least all the drawings by Albert Edelfelt that were made to illustrate Fänrik Ståhls sågner are PD, because they are most likely scanned. If not, PD versions may be found from Doria database where the works are definitely scans. Then, when we have completed the work of sourcing the images, we move all the unusable images to En-wikipedia where we can apply Bridgeman vs. Corel. --MPorciusCato 09:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment In Finland, the simple photographs are copyrighted for 50 years if they have been published after 1966. All simple photographs before that date are free. Therefore, the photographs taken in Finland of any paintings and published before 1966 are free. A photograph of a painting is not a "photographic work" because it has no originality. --MPorciusCato 09:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Finnish law seems to be somewhat different from the other three given that the Finnish copyright council has stated that Image:Paavo Nurmi sytyttää olympiatulen 1952.jpg isn't covered by copyright (see: former debate), so perhaps the Finnish case should be split off into a separate debate? Swedish, Norwegian and Danish law is to a large extent inspired by each other. Peter Schønning's Ophavsretten med kommentarer specifically mentions that Danish copyright law is supposed to function in sync with the other Scandinavian states. IANAL, but as I read the Danish law, §70, 2 covers anything below the threshold of originality. Mere mechanical scans are probably free. Valentinian (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Try to find out who took the photographs. If impossible or if photographers don't consent to publish the photographs: delete. (And stop whining about deleting images that are copyrighted. It sometimes feels like thieves are whining because they have to return their loot.) --Ibn Battuta 16:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its complicated. To day I bougt a book Gløersen, Nikolai Astrup, Oslo 1954. Inside it tells «tekst Inger Alver Gløersen 12 Fargeplansjer etter Malerier og tresnitt». No photograf. This book are more than 50 years old and pictures inside I think will be PD. In a new book those pictures may be used, and no one knows who have made them. My point is we often dont know who and when pictures in a book have been made. I think that if the art are in PD and there are no names of a photograf we are not thieves.---Nina- 00:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break October
[edit]

Keep This is a reproduction. Jakro64 05:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Today, after the event of digital photography, developed mainly during the last 10 years, there is hardly any difference between electronic scanning (like on a Xerox machine) and a digital photography (like a picture taken with a Cannon or Nikon SLR camera). Now it is claimed in the above discussion that photography is an "art", and thus comes under a special law. But surely electronic scanning is not an art, for it is only a standard automatized industrial or office procedure. Now both electronic scanning as well as digital photography produce jpeg images as standard output. And it is not possible to tell whether a jpeg image was produced by an SLR camera or an electronic scanner: I, for example, often use a small digital camera to copy documents, and the images are no different from scanned images. Hence I'd say that whether you call an image a scan or a photo is immaterial: From a technical point of view, exactly the same technologies are used (optical lens system, rasterized CCD chip, digital memory chips for temporary storage and magnetic media (harddrives) or optical media (CD/DVD) for permanent storage.

But a scan is something that needs to be done to ANY 2-D image stored as an analogue image on some medium, whether canvas, paper or plastic, in order to put it on the internet. For scanning merely means a technology that changes an analogue image into a digital one. And all images accessible via the internet are digital images (which includes the so called vector images). Therefore, reason tells us that the copyright applies to the ORIGINAL image: Is it protected by any copyright? Then you can't copy it. Is it not protected by copyright, then you can copy it digitally and put the digital image on the internet, it is as simple as that. (People are copyrighted, right?) User: gangdagr, October 8, 2007.

Indeed the laws in these modern times are often lagging behind new technology. However, photography is expressly covered by the copyright law, and all the references me and others have found and mentioned on Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag agree that these kind of photographs are protected. The law in Scandinavian countries give protection for photographs -- period. All Scandinavian judicial experts agree.
Fred J 16:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Especially Finnish law is different in this case; there is no point discussing images from four different countries at once, it doesn't make sense to discuss / delete them at once. In this comment I'm not saying all images should be kept, but it's ridiculous to request all images uploaded by some user to be deleted as they are under different legislation. Waste of work and time, really. If not anything else, split the Finnish images to a different nom. --Pudeo 21:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment (moved from Village Pump) It is noted that many of 'Jorunn's" images including that of the Wild Hunt (Aasgaardreinen peter nicolai arbo mindre.jpg) and numerous others are set for deletion. It is hoped that the decision for deletion will be reconsidered as many of these images are both Artistically and Historically significant, to delete them would be akin to burning books.

Profs. Lawrence A. Starr—the preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.42.13 (talk • contribs)

This is a copyright issue. If a book is copyrighted, one may not claim it is public domain.
Perhaps the images are not copyrighted on English Wikipedia? Then please transfer them there. It should also be possible to use them there claiming "fair use". Commons, on the other hand, is for free contents.
Fred J 16:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good comparision, Professor. However, as many times seen here, deletionists have no shame. It just needs to fit their agenda, no matter whether the issue is ridiculous or waste of time, or just stupid copyright paranoia. Again the rules are original research of laws, the Finnish law atleast does not mention photos of art at all. There isn't a single case in courts changing the status quo, so here we go with the deletionists again.. --Pudeo 10:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does Finnish copyright law § 49 say? And if you had read Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag#Nordic countries you would have noticed Samulili 19:55, 8 September 2007 Pirkko-Liisa Haarmann (2006, pp. 281) writes: "Also he who slavishly strives to follow a certain model receives protection for his images." ("Suojaa saa niin ikään se, joka orjallisesti pyrkii valokuvissaan seuraamaan tiettyä esikuvaa.")
Fred J 10:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It says a photographer has the rights to the photo, as modified or unmodified, to publish or distribute his/her photo. This right lasts for 50 years. It doesn't say a thing about the question whether photo of someone's else work is copyrighted. That is 2D art, requires no originality for the photographes. Can Samulili link a court case here? Otherwise it seems bit funny to remove such paintings, thinking Wikimedia would be first one to be sued. Talk about copyright paranoia. I never even had thought one could claim an image of painting could be copyrighted to the photographer, this is not recognised. We are not lawyers, why we should research some law articles, when there isn't a single court case deciding them? --Pudeo 11:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to me it seems to be a very bad idea to go against both the juridical experts and the written law, just because there is no legal case. Maybe you want Commons to be the first legal case? / Fred J 15:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1) To my mind, Wikimedia Commons should be the lowest common denominator of all laws of all countries, and not a United-States-centered place. 2) We should avoid Jorunn any trouble, and comply with his request 3) The people who favor keeping should at least allow the pictures to be deleted in a first time to comply with Jorunn's request, and re-upload them themselves in a subsequent time. 4) This is somewhat similar to my own request Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bonnat21.jpg (France). Teofilo 09:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Is not the issue of copyright down to if, or not, the original painting is in the public domain. If the original is in a private collection or in a private display seen only by payment and can only be photographed with special permission and /or payment, then any subsequent photograph is copyrighted. If however the original is in the public domain then any photograph made of it is considered a derivative work and also therefore public domain. Richard Harvey 12:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that nobody who can read Scandinavian and voted keep has commented on my previous post, so I'll post it again, translated into English:

Johan Krabbe-Knudsen: Photographic woks and photographic images, the Norwegian Copyright Act §1 and §43a (CompLex 1/98, ISBN 82-518-3786-3), page 64:

“If one takes a photograph of a painting, it would be a photographic image as defined in the Norwegian Copyright Act §43a. The photograph is protected [by copyright], but how it is used depends on whether the image is protected [by copyright]. In any case, nobody may use the photograph even though the painting is public domain. If somebody wants to use it, he has to get consent from the photographer. He may alternatively photograph the painting himself.”

Ole-Andreas Rognstad in cooperation with Birger Stuevold Lassen: Fragments of a textbook in copyright law, Institute of Private Law, the University of Oslo (2004), page 146:

“If it is a work of art as for example a painting or a drawing that is photographed, the result will be a copy of both the work of art and the photographic image, and use of the image can only happen if it is legal in both sets of rules.”

Maybe some of the users who are voting keep can comment on these authoritative sources? --Kjetil r 00:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual images that are not photographs but scans
[edit]
  • I agree, with all my heart! If, for some reason these people, that in plain Finnish generally are addressed as "point fuckers", manage to have these pictures deleted, I happen to have in my possession a specimen of Fänrik Ståls sägner from 1883, illustrated by another, not so well known artist. I believe that those illustrations without doubt are in public domain, so please give me a hint in that case! -Islander 22:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Sorry I didn't read through all of this, but these seem perfectly PD as far as the U.S. and our servers go. What if I make new copies of these images and upload them? Would this hypothetically change anything since I'm in the U.S.? According to my government the photographer doesn't own the copyright - the original artist does (which is now expired). My copy could be treated as a direct copy of the original work meaning PD for everyone. Yeah, I know logic and copyright laws don't mix. Rocket000 18:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All kept. The author has died 70 years prior and hence these images are all in the public domain. I have restored a few images that were deleted. -- Cat ちぃ？ 22:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Nordic countries. Regardless of when the painter died, photographers have an exclusive right to their photographs for 50 years. Thuresson 04:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. copies can be supplied if you want to get technical, but a copy is a copy as far as I'm concerned. Maybe the uploader was wrong to upload these in the first place by violating their country's laws, but it's not wrong to keep these. Because the image is now on our severs, only the painter has (had) the copyright. We can't change that. It would be copyfraud to say any different. Rocket000 13:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Thuresson, this is not a legal issue (clearly PD in the U.S.), but a Commons policy issue and thus should be decided by consensus. I think it was wrong to reopen this just because you disagreed. Even if you feel there's enough reason to renominate these, it's way too soon. Deleting some of the images (which I restored) was also wrong. You did this twice now. Please wait for discussions to be closed before acting. Rocket000 14:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This closure was a complete non-sequitur which didn't address any of the actual concerns. It doesn't even give the impression that the admin read the page. As for deleting images, I think it is preferable to transwiki them to English Wikipedia. Haukurth 23:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? That diminishes Commons' role. If they're PD, they belong on Commons. The closure was in-line with consensus. Rocket000 23:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we are keeping these photos, we should make some changes to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Nordic countries. My suggestions are in bold below:

Nordic countries

Generally  Not OK. In Denmark (Article 70), Finland (Article 49 a), Norway (Article 43 a), Sweden (Article 49 a), and Iceland (§49), anyone who has produced a photographic picture has an exclusive right to reproduce the picture and to make it available to the public. This right subsists until 50 years have elapsed from the year in which the picture was produced (15 years p.m.a. but at least 50 years in Norway). However, the Wikimedia Commons community has decided that American laws shall be applied to Norwegian photos, so all Norwegian PD-art images are OK per Bridgeman Art Library -v- Corel Corporation<ref>[[Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Jorunn (uploaders request)]]</ref>

Photographic reproductions from these countries enter the public domain when both the copyrights on the original and this neighboring right on the photograph have expired. Recent photos are thus never OK (apart from Norwegian photos), but older ones may be (if the original is in the public domain). These countries had until the 1990s shorter terms for this photography right.

  • Iceland: OK before January 1, 1957. Iceland has a term of 50 years since creation.
  • Norway: Always OK before January 1, 1970 if the photographer died before January 1, 1980 Norway had a term of 25 years since creation (but at least 15 years p.m.a.) until 1995. If the photographer died later or the picture was taken later, the current terms apply.[2]
  • Sweden: OK before January 1, 1969. Sweden had a term of 25 years until 1994.
  • Finland: OK before January 1, 1966. Finland had a term of 25 years until 1991.
  • Denmark: OK before January 1, 1970. Denmark had a term of 25 years until 1995. (§91, 5 in the current law).[3]

However, mechanical reproduction such as photocopying and scanning are not mentioned in the laws, and are probably OK. Similarly, reprints using old etchings and copper-plates should not be protected.

Kjetil r 02:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um.. we could, but that's there to inform users what they can and can't upload (and possible reuse) depending on where they live, not what we host. Two different things. And U.S. laws don't apply to Norwegian photos, it's just once they're in the U.S., we have to follow our laws. Legally we make no distinction between the original paintings and these copies. We can not give say others hold the copyright, when they don't. It doesn't matter where these copies are made (they're currently being made in the U.S. every time someone downloads the image from our servers). It only matters where copyrighted material is created. These are PD and cannot be re-copyrighted. BTW, I know you were being facetious, but maybe we should make the policy a little clearer. Rocket000 03:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being facetious. Have you actually read Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag? It specifically says that "If you want to upload to Commons a copy of a photograph originally taken by somebody else, you have to be able to demonstrate [...] that under local law and that of the U.S., the photograph is not original enough to qualify for copyright protection." Norwegian copyright law does give photos of 2D art protection as simple photographs. None of the users voting “keep” has given a reliable source that claims that they are not. The same users have not addressed the arguments of the sources I have have presented. We can therefore not both keep these photos and have a policy saying that such photos are against policy. That is why I suggest that we amend our policy, so that these images do not violate it. --Kjetil r 07:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Commons:Licensing:

"When uploading material from a country outside the US, the copyright laws of that country and the US apply. If material that has been saved from a third-party website is uploaded to Commons, the copyright laws of the US, the country of residence of the uploader, and the country of location of the web servers of the website apply. Thus, any licence to use the material should apply in all relevant jurisdictions; if the material is in the public domain, it must be in the public domain in all these jurisdictions (plus in the country of origin of the work) for it to be allowable on Commons.

Upload the disputed photos to English Wikipedia and tag them with "Template:Do not move to Commons":

Public license

Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons.
This image is in the public domain in the United States but is NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN IN ITS COUNTRY OF ORIGIN. Commons only accepts files that are public domain in both country of origin and the United States. See en:Template talk:PD-US, Commons:Licensing, Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details.

It has always been standard practice at WikiCommons that photos that are not public domain in the country of origin can not be uploaded to WikiCommons. Innumerable images that are public domain in the US have been deleted before, see for example:

Thuresson 07:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't apply here because there is nothing copyrightable in making a copy in the first place. If the paintings were PD here but not in another country then it would apply and we should delete them, but that's not the case. You can't tell one copy apart from another so technically anyone anywhere can make the exact same thing and release under their county's laws. Since these copies are originating from the U.S. (severs), so they are now PD. (sorry, if that doesn't make sense, I need sleep) Rocket000 10:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever tried taking a photo of a painting? One can certainly tell one copy apart from the other. Compare Image:Leonardo da Vinci 042.jpg to Image:La gioconda.jpg, for example. --Kjetil r 12:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken photos of paintings, and you are able to change it in photoshop. The real question is who have taken the picture of the painting, and are we able to read this in the book we are scanning from ? If not who have the rights? I have books that are more than 50 years old with no name of the photografer and the pictures are named «plansjer». I think I am free too use them and noone can tell whitch picture is from this book because the modern scanners are able to scan without «raster» (I dont know the english word] ---Nina- 22:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, if those photographs are from a book that old, the copyright (of "simple photographs") has expired. The rastering of the images is not a creative process, so I do not think it creates any further copyrights. If you scan from the book, those images are very clearly PD. --MPorciusCato 06:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)--MPorciusCato 06:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Kjetil r. Upon rereading this discussion, I think I was misinterpreting what you were saying. You're right the policy and the conclusion here don't appear to really line up, so either one or the other should change. However, just like for copies of PD-art made in Germany, I don't interpret these as copyrighted in their country of origin. The confusion was not over countries' PD but countries' definition (and our personal interpretations) of "copy" and "derivative". That being, I don't know of any country that gives rights to someone simply for making a copy. If they did, I can make a copy of these copies (all rights would transfer to me as they supposedly did for these photographers), then the country of origin would be the U.S. and it would be PD for everyone. In countries where it wouldn't be PD, and they actually would give me the rights, I would release them all. Of course I wouldn't recognize (nor care about) the original photographer's copyright, as that's copyfraud in my country. Those two images you mentioned above could have been the exact same photo at one point. It's not logical (nor possible) to assign new rights to these. If you did, whoever makes a copy first would then own the copyright. Any other copies other people made would be too similar and they couldn't prove they didn't use the copy instead of the painting itself. We have to be logical here no matter how you might interpret the policy. Rocket000 08:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio? Copyvio? It certainly is!

I really really doubt that those two Mona Lisas could be from the same photograph, there is certainly no reason to assume so or to base any conclusion on the idea that they "could" have been. As for "all rights would transfer to me as they supposedly did for these photographers", that's confused. There are no rights to Mona Lisa to begin with - but photographs of Mona Lisa can still have rights associated with them. Certainly no country will grant you a copyright monopoly for merely copying a file, as you are clearly aware of. Your argument seems to rest on the idea that two photographs of the same painting are always indistinguishable and that's just clearly not true. Try comparing the two pictures Kjetil pointed out in an image manipulation program. Or if you're still not convinced, what about Image:Mona Lisa detail hands.jpg? What would be your case for public domain status of that picture? Haukurth 10:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking about Mona Lisa, but all the images listed on this deletion request (along with any thing else that's in the same boat). Yes, they did have rights to begin with - the painters had those rights.
Ok, so what is my Mona Lisa a derivative of? Which of the above photos did I use? What photographer's rights am I violating? (For the sake of argument, let's pretend both where taken by Norwegian photographers (all rights reserved) in the last five years). BTW, I suck photoshop and never use it. Someone that knows what they're doing can really make this hard. Rocket000 11:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing, I didn't say "indistinguishable", I said close enough. Slight alterations don't transfer rights. Rocket000 11:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so which photo is my Royal Palace a derivative of? Which of the photos in Category:Slottet did I use (please do not look at the metadata)? Are you seriously claiming that just because it is hard to find the original photo, the photographer's rights are null and void? --Kjetil r 13:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before I play this game ;) I just want to point out I wasn't claiming that photographer's rights are null and void because it is hard to find the original photo, I was claiming that a copy is copy, what you have done is made a derivative work, not a copy. Rocket000 14:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, my guess is Image:Det Kongelige Slott.jpg, though it could be from a couple others. (I can see how this could actually be a game :-) Proving a copyvio in this case would be pretty hard. Maybe it wasn't distorted enough, but there may be no copyvio here at all. I don't want to argue this because we're talking about the derivative threshold. Let's stay focused on defining a "copy" like I claim my Mona Lisa is. Please argue why it's not. Rocket000 14:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Is anyone arguing that it's not a copy? The whole point is that we have good reason to believe that reproductive photography (which deals in the production of 'copies', right?) is protected by neighboring rights in Norway (and some other places). Personally I'm happy to change policy so that we require only compliance with US law - but that doesn't seem to be the current order of things. Haukurth 16:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, kudos to both of you for making me laugh with this little game of yours :) Haukurth 16:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←)So it's only copies that are made a certain way, (i.e. photographing) that get protection? I'm sorry this really doesn't make sense to me. I did think you guys were arguing that these photographs weren't copies. You did say "no country will grant you a copyright monopoly for merely copying a file", but now your saying by copying a image with a camera some countries grant you that right. If this is true, I'm sorry, but that's a silly law (or our interpretation of it), and our policy should change. (I feel bad for the people that live there.) What makes a camera so special? There's a lot more creative input when creating a copy with say Photoshop. Rocket000 17:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only refer you to the quotations above. Some countries, Norway included, grant a blanket neighboring rights monopoly for photographs. Legal scholarship says that this applies even to reproductive photography. I, too, would prefer not to have this law but there you go. Haukurth 23:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess I've been arguing against some country's laws. Well, there's no point in that so I'll stop. Thanks for clarifying that for me. Rocket000 02:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I would like to note that still, the deletion request lists images which have not been copied using photograhpic process. I have listed them a few screens upwards, and Fred J has concurred with my suggestion. I suggest we Keep those and Delete the rest. --MPorciusCato 12:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • For those interested in redefining (or not) our policy on this issue, comments are welcome here. As for these specific images, I still think we should keep them, but I may change my mind depending on the responses my comment at the Village Pump gets. Regardless of what I think, we have to make sure there's no discrepancy between our decision here and our policy. Even if there isn't, we have some things to clarify. Rocket000 00:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as delete per FredJ and MPorciusCato. There are ample citations here and at Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag that show that these images are indeed copyrighted in their source country. The files will be deleted once a bot has moved them to the English Wikipedia. The few files that have been listed above as plain scans will be kept. Lupo 08:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Busy deleting & transfering. Don't hold your breath, I'll post here once it is done. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry but this is nonsense. A photo of a building is not a copyvio in Norway, nor is a photo of art on a building. The comparison done in a previous photo is a wild guess and in error. A photo of art like a painting will not renew the copyright status, not in Norway and most countries. A photo with an unknown source is not based upon a "guess when he will die" -method, it is based upon when it is made and possibly when it is made public. And finaly, the norwegian laws on this matter has changed several times in the time frame discussed. Also there are several cases where there are made no distiction between scanning and "mechanical photograping". Perhaps you guys should try to read the actual laws before you starts wild guessing. 87.248.13.41 20:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should find some authoritative sources supporting your view, or respond to the sources I have provided which clearly says that photos of PD-art get protection as simple photographs. --Kjetil r 22:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete everything in the list because of the policy on {{PD-Art}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_Jorunn_(uploaders_request)&oldid=303775159"