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
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
This may not be the best test case. If they were taken in 1949, then no matter whether they are classified as artistic or not, they were not PD by 1996. So they had US copyright restored by the URAA http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Not-PD-US-URAA Best regards, Toby
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:14 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com 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