Lots of European countries have similar laws. In those countries, news photographs are almost always understood to be "non-artistic" (and thus to have the shorter copyright duration).
Ryan Kaldari
On 7/29/13 6:14 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Question regarding shorter copyright terms for some items in one country. Replies should probably go to wikimedia-l as well.
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hrafn Malmquist hrafn.malmquist@gmail.com Date: 29 July 2013 13:54 Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Iceland: Country specific copyright issue regarding artistic photographs To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
49th Article of the Icelandic Copyright Act states ( http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/media/MRN-pdf/he-Copyright-Act.pdf) :
*Article 49*
*The reproduction of photographs, which do not enjoy the protection of this Act for works of art as provided for in *
*the second paragraph of Article 1, is prohibited without the consent of the photographer or the party who has *
*acquired his rights. [Furthermore, the publication of such photographs without the permission of the rightholder *
*shall be prohibited.]1) If such a photograph is presented to the public on a commercial basis or for profit the *
*photographer, or the subsequent holder of his rights, shall be entitled to remuneration. The protection of a *
*photograph in accordance with this paragraph shall apply until [50 years]2) have elapsed from the end of the year *
*in which it was taken.*
*The provisions of Chapter II of this Act shall also apply as appropriate to the photographs referred to in the first *
*paragraph.*
The second paragraph of the first article referenced provided copyright for artistic work. It is therefore my understanding that the 49th article is intended to cover non-artistic photographs.
That begs the question as to how Icelandic courts define artistic photographs. In a ruling from November 27. 2008 Reykjavík District Court found that photographs taken at a public place using a mobile of the movie director Quentin Tarantino were not artistic. ( http://www.domstolar.is/domaleit/nanar/?ID=E200802042&Domur=2&type=1... )
*It is therefore my contention that non-artistic photographs taken before January 1. 1963 are in the public domain.*
I have sought the advice of a lawyer specialising in copyright and he agrees with this estimate.
I want to put this to the test by taking photographs taken by Ólafur K. Magnússon (1926-1997) a photographer for the newspaper Morgunblaðið taken at riots on March 30th 1949 when the Icelandic parliament voted for Iceland to be a founding member of NATO. See: http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/myndasyrpa.html?cat_id=4;album=634
It is obviously a central issue whether a photograph is artistic or not. Should the photos be considered artistic the copyright does not expire until (1997+70=2067).
I have sent a query to Morgunblaðið, which still holds the photographs, and the man who takes care of the photographic archive did not agree that the photos are non-artistic (I suspect this is his personal opinion).
There is little history of contending the 49. article, I believe the example cited above is the only one (When I contacted the curator of the Reykjavík Photographic Museum she had not heard of the 49th article).
So, do I upload to Commons? the Icelandic Wikipedia with a caveat ("This photo is reproduced under the assumption that the 49th article of the Copyright Act of 1972 applies")? Both?
Best, Hrafn Malmquist _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l