In Estonian Wikipedia we have a copyright exemption (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy) for photos of buildings, statues etc., whose authors have not died recently (70 years after death hasen't passed yet). These photos are tagged with http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mall:KunstiteoseFoto.

And these photos can't be uploaded to Commons, because of no Freedom of Panorama in Estonian Copyright Law: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:FOP#Estonia.

So some photos of monuments will be ok for Estonian Wikipedia, but not ok for Wikimedia Commons.

-- Raul

2011/4/19 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org:

Hi Raul, an imporant aspect of the image competition is that the images have to be able to be used on the local Wikipedia - therefore it is important that they are allowed under local law (we dont want people to do something illegal). To keep it simple, we should try to do all uploading on Wikimedia Commons (this allows shared tools, simplified messaging and participation by tourists when they get home and dont speak estonian) - and therefore all images should *also* be allowed under Commons policies. I hope that is clear :) If you have a specific situation in mind, I would welcome you to share it. With kind regards, Lodewijk 2011/4/19 Raul Kern raunator@gmail.com

...

Hi,

did I understand correctly, that pictures taking part from national WLM competition have to follow the copyright rules on local Wikipedia.

And from European competition can take part only pictures that are free enough for Wikimedia Commons.

-- Raul

---

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

---

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

Hi,

let's simplify this discussion, and assume that there just happens to be a situation where images are allowed on a specific wiki, but not on commons - the question is, should they be eligable to the contest. (I think the exact discussion about the copyright status is a bit too complicated to have right here right now - but is of course an important one to answer).

I think more opinions would be welcome, but my take would be: KISS - only allow images through commons, that would keep the rules the simplest and the tools probably as well. Also that would be the simplest for tourists who might want to participate.

Best,

Lodewijk

2011/4/24 Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com

2011/4/24 Raul Kern raunator@gmail.com:

...

In Estonian Wikipedia we have a copyright exemption (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy) for photos of buildings, statues etc., whose authors have not died recently (70 years after death hasen't passed yet). These photos are tagged with

http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mall:KunstiteoseFoto.

Do you mean the pictures of objects of which their architect or author has not died before 1939 ? What is a legal basis to use these pictures on Estonian Wikipedia if the freedom of panorama does not work? Is there any other copyright exemption for such the pictures you can use, or is just a kind of "fair use"?

If there is any exempt in Estonian copyright law, except fair use - which allows to use such these pictures in Estonian Wikipedia - there is no reason why not to let it upload to Commons... Simply this exempt should be properly described on Commons.

Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

---

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

As I said in first posting 1) pictures that are allowed for local Wikipedia should be eligible for WLM local competition. Keep It Simple Stupid principle for local participiants -- they should not know the details about Freedom of Panorama in local Copyright Law.

2) And pictures that are allowed to Commons are only eligble for pan-European WLM competition.

If the 1 and 2 don't match, then the additional technical complexity will be up to local organisers to handle.

-- Raul

2011/4/25 Edo de Roo edoderoo@gmail.com:

I agree on this. Let images on commons be part of the contest, other images are still welcome to be used on a local wiki

This will be straightforward and clear, Edo On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:

...

Hi, let's simplify this discussion, and assume that there just happens to be a situation where images are allowed on a specific wiki, but not on commons - the question is, should they be eligable to the contest. (I think the exact discussion about the copyright status is a bit too complicated to have right here right now - but is of course an important one to answer). I think more opinions would be welcome, but my take would be: KISS - only allow images through commons, that would keep the rules the simplest and the tools probably as well. Also that would be the simplest for tourists who might want to participate. Best, Lodewijk

2011/4/24 Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com

...

2011/4/24 Raul Kern raunator@gmail.com:

...

In Estonian Wikipedia we have a copyright exemption (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy) for photos of buildings, statues etc., whose authors have not died recently (70 years after death hasen't passed yet). These photos are tagged with http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mall:KunstiteoseFoto.

Do you mean the pictures of objects of which their architect or author has not died before 1939 ? What is a legal basis to use these pictures on Estonian Wikipedia if the freedom of panorama does not work? Is there any other copyright exemption for such the pictures you can use, or is just a kind of "fair use"?

If there is any exempt in Estonian copyright law, except fair use - which allows to use such these pictures in Estonian Wikipedia - there is no reason why not to let it upload to Commons...  Simply this exempt should be properly described on Commons.

Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

---

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

---

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

-- [I don't print e-mails. Do you?]

---

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

Raul Kern wrote:

As I said in first posting

1. pictures that are allowed for local Wikipedia should be eligible

for WLM local competition. Keep It Simple Stupid principle for local participiants -- they should not know the details about Freedom of Panorama in local Copyright Law.

2. And pictures that are allowed to Commons are only eligble for

pan-European WLM competition.

If the 1 and 2 don't match, then the additional technical complexity will be up to local organisers to handle.

-- Raul

That's more or less my opinion. * Only images allowed in commons are eligible for the pan-European WLM competition. * The local competition MAY additionally accept images not allowed in commons. They should nonetheless be allowed in at least one of the wikipedias designated as local in that competition.

That second point seems a can of worms, though. I think the organisers should consider the implications very carefully before allowing more images.

In summary, the subset of allowed images would be at least the commons rules and at most, the local wikipedia rules, with intermediate such as only allowing in the competition some of the rationales available in a local wikipedia.

Hi all, Since this thread seems to just be about Estonia, I looked up what is available now on Commons for Estonia, and there are lots of buildings there already with this template: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:FOP-buildings-category_warning pasted above the category here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Buildings_in_Estonia http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Buildings_in_EstoniaWhen I read the text of that template it just says that buildings whose architect died more than 70 years ago can be photographed for Commons. However, I see that here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:FOP#Estonia it states that in Estonia, the fair use policy applies to ALL buildings, not just the ones younger than death-of-architect-plus-70-years, EXCEPT when the building is not the main subject of the photo.

This sounds like the Italian situation and therefore that all photos in that category need to be deleted if "the building is the main subject".

The way I interpret this now is that this photo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Haapsalu_castle.jpg should be deleted, but this one http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Haapsalu_linnus10.jpg is OK (view of the lake in the distance is the subject)

The way to technically get around this one is to make sure that the object is NOT the main subject of the photo. Then all is well.

hope it helps, Jane

2011/4/26 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org

Yes, that would definitely leave us with some implications:

• People would have to preselect their upload platform based on copyright

information

• Those could not upload through Flickr etc (because CCBYSA etc cannot be

applied directly)

• Tourists would not be allowed to upload under this doctrine because they

do not fall under Estonian law - so you would have to check for this too

• You have to be quite sure that this is really legally sane (I believe you

on your word, but just realize this)

• It probably makes showing images on a map etc technically and graphically

more challenging because you are working from multiple sources and you need to display them differently

I don't want to tell you what to do or not to do, but I do hope that you thought about resolving these issues in an as simple as possible way :)

Best,

Lodewijk

2011/4/26 Platonides platonides@gmail.com

...

Raul Kern wrote:

...

As I said in first posting

1. pictures that are allowed for local Wikipedia should be eligible

for WLM local competition. Keep It Simple Stupid principle for local participiants -- they should not know the details about Freedom of Panorama in local Copyright Law.

2. And pictures that are allowed to Commons are only eligble for

pan-European WLM competition.

If the 1 and 2 don't match, then the additional technical complexity will be up to local organisers to handle.

-- Raul

That's more or less my opinion.

• Only images allowed in commons are eligible for the pan-European WLM

competition.

• The local competition MAY additionally accept images not allowed in

commons. They should nonetheless be allowed in at least one of the wikipedias designated as local in that competition.

That second point seems a can of worms, though. I think the organisers should consider the implications very carefully before allowing more images.

In summary, the subset of allowed images would be at least the commons rules and at most, the local wikipedia rules, with intermediate such as only allowing in the competition some of the rationales available in a local wikipedia.

---

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

---

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

Hmm, then in that case, there is a problem with all of those pictures. Of course, in some countries, there is a gap between the law and enforcement. I don''t know if Wikipedia Estonia needs to worry in the way the Italians do. Having laws doesn't always imply enforcement. If the law is as the Commons templates currently suggest, then I believe however that only Wikipedia Estonia can host these pictures, since they are the only ones who can take the no-enforcement risk.

That does mean however that they cannot take part in the Europe-competition, because I really don't see how you can set up the photo-upload tool to work for them.

How sad!

Jane

2011/4/26 Ole Palnatoke Andersen palnatoke@gmail.com

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote: ...

...

The way to technically get around this one is to make sure that the

object

...

is NOT the main subject of the photo. Then all is well. hope it helps,

Yes and no - in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Haapsalu_linnus10.jpg, the wall ruin is the main subject of the photo, no matter what you claim.

Regards, Ole

-- http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588

---

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

Hi everyone,

This gets a bit confusing. Let's go step by step. You take a photo of a building. 1. Is the buildings architect death for more than 70 years? Yes. Free

2. Is the building the main subject? No. Free.

3. Does the country have Freedom of Panorama (FOP). Yes: Free. No: Unfree.

4. Does your Wikipedia have an exemption doctrine (like Fair Use) for buildings. Yes: you can use the (low resolution) image at your local Wikipedia.

Italy is a special case. The law just dictates that the Italian government owns the rights of certain buildings.

Maarten

Op 26 apr 2011 om 12:13 heeft Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org het volgende geschreven:\

Hi,

lets not jump to conclusions just yet :)

I don't read the template like you do, and understand the Estonian situation quite differently. As I understand it, there are basically two exemptions (The Fair Use-like exemption for buildings and the 70- year-after-death exemption) which have overlap in old buildings. The fact that the FU-exemption does not specify the 70 year one does not invalidate the out-of-copyright situation. And then even this is all based on Commons-templates, which are user generated, not necessarily by experts and simplified to make it easier to understand.

Best regards,

Lodewijk

2011/4/26 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com Hmm, then in that case, there is a problem with all of those pictures. Of course, in some countries, there is a gap between the law and enforcement. I don''t know if Wikipedia Estonia needs to worry in the way the Italians do. Having laws doesn't always imply enforcement. If the law is as the Commons templates currently suggest, then I believe however that only Wikipedia Estonia can host these pictures, since they are the only ones who can take the no- enforcement risk.

That does mean however that they cannot take part in the Europe- competition, because I really don't see how you can set up the photo- upload tool to work for them.

How sad!

Jane

2011/4/26 Ole Palnatoke Andersen palnatoke@gmail.com On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote: ...

...

The way to technically get around this one is to make sure that

the object

...

is NOT the main subject of the photo. Then all is well. hope it helps,

Yes and no - in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Haapsalu_linnus10.jpg, the wall ruin is the main subject of the photo, no matter what you claim.

Regards, Ole

-- http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588

---

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

---

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

---

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

Maarten and Bastien, I certainly agree that it is confusing. Maarten's first point is an odd exception to the Freedom of Panorama rule that I never heard of before I read those Estonian Commons template tags. The usual Wiki Commons "FOP" copyright is wide open as long as you are outside, anywhere in Europe. I certainly hope that this is just a problem with the current templates on Commons for Estonia. I wonder how Estonian travel agencies handle this issue?

My understanding until now has been that for some countries there may be special restrictions, like in Italy for some monuments and in France in specific bizarre cases like the French Louvre museum, the Eiffel tower when illuminated at night (but only after 1989, when the current lights were installed, and only when the light display is visible, so not if there are fireworks going off all around it) and in other countries there may be restrictions because of privacy issues, but in general, everything is allowed. This is especially the case for public art and cultural heritage sites, which are often also tourist attractions.

The problem I was referring to in my earlier mail was the problem with the Estonian template tags for Commons, because they don't use the Wiki Loves Monuments preferred template -- the CC-by-SA tag for "Creative Commons-Attibuted-Share Alike". If this issue is just a misunderstanding, then the proper templates should be used. If not, then perhaps for the competition certain monuments in Estonia or certain cities could allow CC-by-SA to be used for the period of the competition, using the argument that "It would be a great benefit to the general public at large to have high quality photo's of these important cultural objects that are free to use by anybody, anywhere".

Jane

2011/4/27 Bastien bzg@altern.org

Hi Maarten,

Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl writes:

...

1. Is the buildings architect death for more than 70 years? Yes. Free

I don't want to nitpick, but there are some tricky situations.

In the case of the Eiffel Tower: Eiffel died in 1923, more than 70 years ago, so pictures from a "bare" Eiffel Tower *in daylight* can be free. But pictures from the Eiffel Tower when it's illuminated by night cannot be free... thanks to the copyright an artist owns on this "artwork".

So one must also consider the case when a building is the support for an artwork from an artist that is *not* dead more than 70 years ago...

Sigh.

-- Bastien

---

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

Lodewijk, Thanks for this! I never thought of turning it around, which you did with "non-freedom of panorama is based on copyright". That may sound pretty confusing, but I actually get that! So anything older than the "70-year-rule" is always free of copyright, except in certain situations in Italy?

This is all very enlightening, Jane

2011/4/27 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org

Hi Jane,

I am not sure what you are referring to in your third paragraph, but let me at least try to clarify the point you make in your first. Maartens first point (buildings by architects died longer than 70 years ago) relates to the general principle in copyright that a number of years after the death of the author, the copyright ceases to exist. Since the non-freedom of panorama is based on copyright, this is also valid there. So there is, as far as I am aware, no reference to an "odd" exception there. It is just as well valid for writers, painters and photographers.

Kind regards,

Lodewijk

2011/4/27 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com

...

Maarten and Bastien, I certainly agree that it is confusing. Maarten's first point is an odd exception to the Freedom of Panorama rule that I never heard of before I read those Estonian Commons template tags. The usual Wiki Commons "FOP" copyright is wide open as long as you are outside, anywhere in Europe. I certainly hope that this is just a problem with the current templates on Commons for Estonia. I wonder how Estonian travel agencies handle this issue?

My understanding until now has been that for some countries there may be special restrictions, like in Italy for some monuments and in France in specific bizarre cases like the French Louvre museum, the Eiffel tower when illuminated at night (but only after 1989, when the current lights were installed, and only when the light display is visible, so not if there are fireworks going off all around it) and in other countries there may be restrictions because of privacy issues, but in general, everything is allowed. This is especially the case for public art and cultural heritage sites, which are often also tourist attractions.

The problem I was referring to in my earlier mail was the problem with the Estonian template tags for Commons, because they don't use the Wiki Loves Monuments preferred template -- the CC-by-SA tag for "Creative Commons-Attibuted-Share Alike". If this issue is just a misunderstanding, then the proper templates should be used. If not, then perhaps for the competition certain monuments in Estonia or certain cities could allow CC-by-SA to be used for the period of the competition, using the argument that "It would be a great benefit to the general public at large to have high quality photo's of these important cultural objects that are free to use by anybody, anywhere".

Jane

2011/4/27 Bastien bzg@altern.org

...

Hi Maarten,

Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl writes:

...

1. Is the buildings architect death for more than 70 years? Yes. Free

I don't want to nitpick, but there are some tricky situations.

In the case of the Eiffel Tower: Eiffel died in 1923, more than 70 years ago, so pictures from a "bare" Eiffel Tower *in daylight* can be free. But pictures from the Eiffel Tower when it's illuminated by night cannot be free... thanks to the copyright an artist owns on this "artwork".

So one must also consider the case when a building is the support for an artwork from an artist that is *not* dead more than 70 years ago...

Sigh.

-- Bastien

---

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

---

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

---

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

2011/4/27 Bastien bzg@altern.org:

Hi Maarten,

Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl writes:

...

1. Is the buildings architect death for more than 70 years? Yes. Free

I don't want to nitpick, but there are some tricky situations.

In the case of the Eiffel Tower: Eiffel died in 1923, more than 70 years ago, so pictures from a "bare" Eiffel Tower *in daylight* can be free. But pictures from the Eiffel Tower when it's illuminated by night cannot be free... thanks to the copyright an artist owns on this "artwork".

Yes.. And some of my pictures taken in Paris were deleted from Commons :-) By the way: tourists from countries with which the country they visit signed he copyright protection treaties (Berne conventions and WIPO conventions), with some exeptions, should also follow local law of the country of origin even if they are about to upload the pictures after coming back to their countries.

So one must also consider the case when a building is the support for an artwork from an artist that is *not* dead more than 70 years ago...

Or you have a building which was renovated, but not exactly as it was original, but with some original "improvements" of the conptemporary architect.

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 12:12:07PM +0200, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:

2011/4/24 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org:

...

Hi, let's simplify this discussion, and assume that there just happens to be a situation where images are allowed on a specific wiki, but not on commons - the question is, should they be eligable to the contest. (I think the exact discussion about the copyright status is a bit too complicated to have right here right now - but is of course an important one to answer).

I think such a discussion is crucial - I mean if the local Wikipedia community decided to allow upload of pictures which are... say.. "barely legal" my suggestion would be not to accept them for competition, just because we cannot encourge potential copyright violation habbits. But if they are perfectly legal in country of origin - why not?

If they are perfectly legal in the country of origin, they are allowed on commons. So I think the criteria 'allowed on commons' is an easy and clear rule.

Regards,

Andre Koopal

-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

---

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu