Dear all,
On the occasion of the drafting of the Digital republic bill - which you
may have heard of - Wikimedia France has been involved, for the past 8
months, in raising awareness among politicians on the concept of freedom of
panorama, which would allow many recent buildings to be illustrated on
Wikipedia and Commons, especially.
Currently, the text of the bill is being studied in the Senate. For now,
the amendment proposed integrates a non commercial restriction, which is in
contradiction with the licenses used on our projects. It is therefore
necessary for the bill to be modified.
We need to show that such a debate mobilizes the public opinion : you can
support our action by signing our online petition [1] and spreading the
word as much as possible !
Thank you for your help !
Anne-Laure
On behalf of Wikimedia France
[1]
https://www.change.org/p/s%C3%A9nat-pour-une-libert%C3%A9-de-panorama-clair…
*Anne-Laure Prévost*
CONSEILLÈRE SPÉCIALE PARTENARIATS ET RELATIONS INSTITUTIONNELLES /
SPECIAL ADVISOR PARTNERSHIPS & INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
*Tél +33 7 62 93 42 02 /*
*+33 1 42 36 97 72*
*Wikimédia France*
*Association pour le libre partage de la connaissance*
* <https://dons.wikimedia.fr/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=1>
<https://dons.wikimedia.fr/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=2>*
Hi,
There is a distinction in Swedish law around taking the photo
for your own use - and transferring the photo to other people. Taking
(digital) photos are still okay, and it is explicitly stated in the law
that it is okay to transfer the photo in the analog sense (i.e. put the
image in a book or on a postcard and sell it for profit is perfectly
fine).
But what we were sued for was our work with Offentligkonst.se, where we are using digital
means to transfer these images to other people. We, and our legal
councils, thought that the court would interpret the law technology
neutral (i.e. if a printing press is okay to use as a tool, then a
computer would). We were wrong...
Best,
John- - - -John AnderssonWikimedia SverigeProject ManagerPhone: +46(0)73-3965189Email: john.andersson(a)wikimedia.seSkype: johnandersson86
> From: publicpolicy-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Publicpolicy Digest, Vol 46, Issue 2
> To: publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 17:44:34 +0000
>
> Send Publicpolicy mailing list submissions to
> publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> publicpolicy-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> publicpolicy-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Publicpolicy digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Is the Swedish Twist unique? (Ryan Kaldari)
> 2. Re: Is the Swedish Twist unique? (Ryan Kaldari)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 11:44:03 -0600
> From: Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org>
> To: Publicpolicy Group for Wikimedia
> <publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Publicpolicy] Is the Swedish Twist unique?
> Message-ID:
> <CACT3B=VicsSHNPKnPp2iB8eyqRUTkxOi+M0xKALG8Vncc=kXOw(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> [Warning: This is a lawman's analysis. I'm not a lawyer.]
>
> Wow, this is a pretty incredible decision. It seems the Swedish Supreme
> Court has gutted the country's Freedom of Panorama law (for all works
> including buildings) by simply declaring that the the law's statement
> that "Works
> of art may be reproduced..." ("Konstverk får avbildas...") doesn't apply to
> the internet. They seem to have bent over backwards to reach this
> conclusion, citing the European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29 /
> EC of 22 May 2001 (which they say "imposes a strong protection of
> copyright, especially in the digital environment") and even the fact that
> other Nordic countries don't have Freedom of Panorama (they do, it's just
> restricted to buildings). Their basic conclusion is that the law must be
> interpreted as conservatively as possible because otherwise it would
> "unreasonably prejudice" the author's financial interests (without
> acknowledging at all the public's interest). They awkwardly explain that
> postcards don't constitute a significant impact on commercial exploitation,
> but when it comes to new technology like the internet, the law must be
> assumed to not apply (despite what a reasonable person would assume from
> the law's text). This is very disappointing indeed.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Raul Veede <raul.veede(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > Most likely the Swedes can explain the exact nuances better, but from the
> > little I have gathered, it seems that Swedish Supreme Court today decided
> > that although there is Freedom of Panorama in Sweden, it cannot be extended
> > to publishing the images of public art on the Internet.
> >
> > Now, the exact reasoning, all the consequences and WMSE's further actions
> > notwithstanding, my question is whether this makes Sweden the only country
> > in the world where such a distinction is established? If yes, this is a
> > very dangerous precedent. If not, I would very much want to know the
> > peculiarities in the other cases.
> >
> > In either case, we should be prepared to counter suggestions to adapt that
> > distinction to the other countries in Europe.
> >
> > Some links:
> > * WMSE's press release:
> > http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/pressreleases/hoegsta-domstolen-vaeljer-att-kr…
> > * The same in Google Translate:
> > https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=…
> > * Supreme Court's decision in Google Translate:
> > https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&p…
> > * Swedish Copyright Act in English (on Unesco's homepage):
> > http://portal.unesco.org/culture/admin/file_download.php/se_copyright_2005_…
> >
> > Some coverage in Swedish:
> > http://feber.se/webb/art/346833/offentligkonstse_bryter_mot_up/
> > http://www.svt.se/kultur/konst/brottsligt-sprida-bilder-av-offentligt-konst…
> > http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/lag-och-ratt/hd-dom-olagligt-att-publicera-bi…
> > http://www.friatider.se/wikipedia-f-r-inte-visa-bilder-p-konstverk
> > http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/konst-form/hd-brottsligt-att-sprida-bilder-av-…
> >
> > http://www.kamerabild.se/nyheter/foto/hd-beslut-olagligt-att-avbilda-konst-…
> >
> > One particular piece of news in translation, demonstrating the
> > journalist's depth of comprehension, starting with the headline "Copyright
> > of outdoor art also applies online":
> >
> > https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=…
> >
> > Enjoy.
> >
> > Raul
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Publicpolicy mailing list
> > Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
> >
> >
>
Hi,
There is a distinction in Swedish law around taking the photo for your own use - and transferring the photo to other people. Taking (digital) photos are still okay, and it is explicitly stated in the law that it is okay to transfer the photo in the analog sense (i.e. put the image in a book or on a postcard and sell it for profit is perfectly fine).
But what we were sued for was our work with Offentligkonst.se, where we are using digital means to transfer these images to other people. We, and our legal councils, thought that the court would interpret the law technology neutral (i.e. if a printing press is okay to use as a tool, then a computer would). We were wrong...
Best,
John- - - -John AnderssonWikimedia SverigeProject ManagerPhone: +46(0)73-3965189Email: john.andersson(a)wikimedia.seSkype: johnandersson86
> From: publicpolicy-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Publicpolicy Digest, Vol 46, Issue 2
> To: publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 17:44:34 +0000
>
> Send Publicpolicy mailing list submissions to
> publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> publicpolicy-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> publicpolicy-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Publicpolicy digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Is the Swedish Twist unique? (Ryan Kaldari)
> 2. Re: Is the Swedish Twist unique? (Ryan Kaldari)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 11:44:03 -0600
> From: Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org>
> To: Publicpolicy Group for Wikimedia
> <publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Publicpolicy] Is the Swedish Twist unique?
> Message-ID:
> <CACT3B=VicsSHNPKnPp2iB8eyqRUTkxOi+M0xKALG8Vncc=kXOw(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> [Warning: This is a lawman's analysis. I'm not a lawyer.]
>
> Wow, this is a pretty incredible decision. It seems the Swedish Supreme
> Court has gutted the country's Freedom of Panorama law (for all works
> including buildings) by simply declaring that the the law's statement
> that "Works
> of art may be reproduced..." ("Konstverk får avbildas...") doesn't apply to
> the internet. They seem to have bent over backwards to reach this
> conclusion, citing the European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29 /
> EC of 22 May 2001 (which they say "imposes a strong protection of
> copyright, especially in the digital environment") and even the fact that
> other Nordic countries don't have Freedom of Panorama (they do, it's just
> restricted to buildings). Their basic conclusion is that the law must be
> interpreted as conservatively as possible because otherwise it would
> "unreasonably prejudice" the author's financial interests (without
> acknowledging at all the public's interest). They awkwardly explain that
> postcards don't constitute a significant impact on commercial exploitation,
> but when it comes to new technology like the internet, the law must be
> assumed to not apply (despite what a reasonable person would assume from
> the law's text). This is very disappointing indeed.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Raul Veede <raul.veede(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > Most likely the Swedes can explain the exact nuances better, but from the
> > little I have gathered, it seems that Swedish Supreme Court today decided
> > that although there is Freedom of Panorama in Sweden, it cannot be extended
> > to publishing the images of public art on the Internet.
> >
> > Now, the exact reasoning, all the consequences and WMSE's further actions
> > notwithstanding, my question is whether this makes Sweden the only country
> > in the world where such a distinction is established? If yes, this is a
> > very dangerous precedent. If not, I would very much want to know the
> > peculiarities in the other cases.
> >
> > In either case, we should be prepared to counter suggestions to adapt that
> > distinction to the other countries in Europe.
> >
> > Some links:
> > * WMSE's press release:
> > http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/pressreleases/hoegsta-domstolen-vaeljer-att-kr…
> > * The same in Google Translate:
> > https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=…
> > * Supreme Court's decision in Google Translate:
> > https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&p…
> > * Swedish Copyright Act in English (on Unesco's homepage):
> > http://portal.unesco.org/culture/admin/file_download.php/se_copyright_2005_…
> >
> > Some coverage in Swedish:
> > http://feber.se/webb/art/346833/offentligkonstse_bryter_mot_up/
> > http://www.svt.se/kultur/konst/brottsligt-sprida-bilder-av-offentligt-konst…
> > http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/lag-och-ratt/hd-dom-olagligt-att-publicera-bi…
> > http://www.friatider.se/wikipedia-f-r-inte-visa-bilder-p-konstverk
> > http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/konst-form/hd-brottsligt-att-sprida-bilder-av-…
> >
> > http://www.kamerabild.se/nyheter/foto/hd-beslut-olagligt-att-avbilda-konst-…
> >
> > One particular piece of news in translation, demonstrating the
> > journalist's depth of comprehension, starting with the headline "Copyright
> > of outdoor art also applies online":
> >
> > https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=…
> >
> > Enjoy.
> >
> > Raul
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Publicpolicy mailing list
> > Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
> >
> >
>
Today we received some bad news. The Swedish Supreme Court ruled according to the will of the Visual Copyright Society in Sweden, regarding images of public art online, more specifically in the case of our service Offentligkonst.se, a service of ours that is using images from Wikimedia Commons.
This interpretation means that Freedom of Panorama became restricted and that the public space shrunk. It is a great loss for our projects. Next we will talk to our lawyers and see what our remaining legal options are. Intensive efforts to influence our elected officials to change the outdated and problematic clauses in the law are likely to be initiated during the year.
We appreciate any lessons learned that exist regarding the work you guys have done in your countries.
Some useful links (in Swedish):The legal argumentation from the court: http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgoranden/2016/201… press release: http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/pressreleases/hoegsta-domstolen-vaeljer-att-kr… time-line of what has happened: https://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Offentligkonst.se/St%C3%A4mning
Best,
John- - - -John AnderssonWikimedia SverigeProject Manager
Phone: +46(0)73-3965189Email: john.andersson(a)wikimedia.seSkype: johnandersson86