Hello,
Update regarding the court case Reiss Engelhorn Museum vs Wikimedia Commons user. The lawsuit concerns copyright claims related to 17 images of the museum’s public domain works of art, which have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.
The Federal Court of Justice ruled against the Wikimedia Commons user, the high ql reproduction is copyrighted:
https://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gerich...
Best, Steinsplitter
I looked around. there seems to be no on-wiki documentation of this.
The case itself probably rises to stand alone English Wikipedia notability. There is no article either.
There is a gallery of the images. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_subject_to_Reiss_Engelhor...
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 6:58 AM Steinsplitter Wiki via Commons-l < commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
Update regarding the court case Reiss Engelhorn Museum vs Wikimedia Commons user. The lawsuit concerns copyright claims related to 17 images of the museum’s public domain works of art, which have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.
The Federal Court of Justice ruled against the Wikimedia Commons user, the high ql reproduction is copyrighted:
https://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gerich...
Best, Steinsplitter
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Lane Rasberry via Commons-l, 20/12/18 15:05:
The case itself probably rises to stand alone English Wikipedia notability. There is no article either.
There's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiss_Engelhorn_Museum#Wikimedia_lawsuit.
Federico
Agreed, this is an article-worthy case that may have on going repurcussions for hosting PD artwork photographs for Commons.
Perhaps the first step could be an English translation of the ruling, with notes against legal terms which may be being used in a narrow legal context here, rather than using the normal plain English meaning. Aspects of the case, such as this ruling applies where the institution has photography restrictions, and that the photographs were taken by an amateur rather than the institution, are worth emphasising. Clearly this reference case does not automatically transfer risk in scenarios where those same conditions are not present.
Whether this may influence the expert legal interpretation of similar European law in other countries, is probably a hypothetical to park for the time being.
Is there going to be an appeal?
Fae
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018, 13:05 Lane Rasberry via Commons-l < commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
I looked around. there seems to be no on-wiki documentation of this.
The case itself probably rises to stand alone English Wikipedia notability. There is no article either.
There is a gallery of the images.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_subject_to_Reiss_Engelhor...
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 6:58 AM Steinsplitter Wiki via Commons-l < commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
Update regarding the court case Reiss Engelhorn Museum vs Wikimedia Commons user. The lawsuit concerns copyright claims related to 17 images of the museum’s public domain works of art, which have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.
The Federal Court of Justice ruled against the Wikimedia Commons user, the high ql reproduction is copyrighted:
https://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gerich...
Best, Steinsplitter
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Fæ via Commons-l, 20/12/18 15:16:
Is there going to be an appeal?
No mention of it on the WMDE blog, they may have to decide still but they suggest to change the law instead: https://blog.wikimedia.de/2018/12/20/urteil-zu-gemeinfreier-kunst-kulturerbe-fuer-alle-aber-nicht-im-netz/
From a cursory reading of the press release, it seems that part of the ruling was focused on the breach of contract by the museum user.
Federico
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
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 under
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Glyptothek_Munich_-_Permanent_co...
But, unfortunately we are not supposed to have them without an explizit authorisation: http://www.antike-am-koenigsplatz.mwn.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Sonstiges/12-... 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
Hopefully nobody will be in a rush for deletion. An opinion from WMF legal would make more sense before we take action on wiki.
Fae
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018, 14:00 Diego Delso via Commons-l < commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
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 under
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Glyptothek_Munich_-_Permanent_co...
But, unfortunately we are not supposed to have them without an explizit authorisation:
http://www.antike-am-koenigsplatz.mwn.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Sonstiges/12-... 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
A German radio channel just broadcast this interview with a lawyer/art historian regretting the judgment:
https://www1.wdr.de/kultur/kunst/bgh-entscheidung-gemaelde-fotografiestreit-...
So it's interesting, it does seem to be making the media.
-- James.
On 20/12/2018 13:49, Sebastian Rittau via Commons-l wrote:
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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com