Really sad news. An enthusiastic photographer that has no more benefit than the satisfaction of sharing knowledge to the world, gets charged and loses a lawsuit. I think that the movement has to provide an answer, otherwise we should protect photographers who may be not aware of this risk. I run a quick check and realised that we have e.g. hundreds of images from the Glyptothek a museum in Munich with significant greek and roman scultpures underBut, unfortunately we are not supposed to have them without an explizit authorisation:and the list could be long...Now, what should we do about it? wait and see or delete?_______________________________________________El jue., 20 dic. 2018 a las 14:50, Sebastian Rittau via Commons-l (<commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org>) escribió:_______________________________________________On 20.12.18 14:16, Fæ via Commons-l wrote:Is there going to be an appeal?Appeal won't be possible. This already was a ruling by Germany's highest court. Going by the linked summary there are two cases to distinguish:
- Photographs by the museum are under "Lichtbildschutz" (50 years post publication, not full 70pma), because the photographer has multiple options concerning several parameters. (This verdict seems wrong, because there aren't the mentioned parameters are fixed in repro photography. Again the BGH shows its incompetency regarding photography. But it is as it is.)
- Photographs by a visitor are a contract violation. The photographer is liable to restitution. In this case by not uploading the images any further. There is nothing about redistribution by third parties, though.
- Sebastian
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l