Hello, WMNL was recently approached for helping start a photo contest for WWII monuments. Based on this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_NC.svg We assumed that these photographs could be used on Wikipedia, but the recent discussions about the DMCA takedown notice for this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Houseball_(Oldenburg_and_van_Brug...) indicate that FOP in Europe is not really FOP.
To be careful, we have decided to cancel the photo contest idea, though people are of course terribly disappointed about this.
Does anyone know the status of this discussion? Of course, WLM has brought in several thousand of these "possibly-not-FOP" sculptures, as they are often WLM monuments themselves, or are situated directly in front of buildings that are WLM monuments.
Thanks in advance for any info you have - we need a short and sweet way to inform the WWII monument committee and WMNL volunteers why we are cancelling. Jane
Relevant discussion is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/non-US_Freed...
AFAIK, policy in Commons is use choice of law of FOP in country of origin but with a warning for reusers that it may not be free in the US: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Not-free-US-FOP
Vicenç
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 11:53:14 +0100 From: jane023@gmail.com To: commons-l@wikimedia.lists.org; wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wiki Loves Monuments] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?
Hello, WMNL was recently approached for helping start a photo contest for WWII monuments. Based on this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_NC.svg We assumed that these photographs could be used on Wikipedia, but the recent discussions about the DMCA takedown notice for this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Houseball_(Oldenburg_and_van_Brug...) indicate that FOP in Europe is not really FOP.
To be careful, we have decided to cancel the photo contest idea, though people are of course terribly disappointed about this.
Does anyone know the status of this discussion? Of course, WLM has brought in several thousand of these "possibly-not-FOP" sculptures, as they are often WLM monuments themselves, or are situated directly in front of buildings that are WLM monuments.
Thanks in advance for any info you have - we need a short and sweet way to inform the WWII monument committee and WMNL volunteers why we are cancelling. Jane
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
I don't know about the DMCA take down notice in question, but you need to remember that Europe is a continent with many countries, and FOP is one of the areas that hasn't been harmonised even within the European Union. I'm in the UK which does largely have FOP, but only for three dimensional works that are permanently on Public display. The Houseball is definitely three dimensional but if it was in the UK I'd be wondering if it permanent or temporary? For other WWII stuff in the UK a key consideration is whether it is two or three dimensional - there are some WWII related two d display boards near me which I would have photographed if they were covered by FOP.
My suggestion would be to only go ahead in those countries that have FOP, and include a link to the guidelines we have for commons images from that country.
WSC
On 2 March 2013 10:53, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, WMNL was recently approached for helping start a photo contest for WWII monuments. Based on this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_NC.svg We assumed that these photographs could be used on Wikipedia, but the recent discussions about the DMCA takedown notice for this
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Houseball_(Oldenburg_and_van_Brug...) indicate that FOP in Europe is not really FOP.
To be careful, we have decided to cancel the photo contest idea, though people are of course terribly disappointed about this.
Does anyone know the status of this discussion? Of course, WLM has brought in several thousand of these "possibly-not-FOP" sculptures, as they are often WLM monuments themselves, or are situated directly in front of buildings that are WLM monuments.
Thanks in advance for any info you have - we need a short and sweet way to inform the WWII monument committee and WMNL volunteers why we are cancelling. Jane
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Thanks for your quick responses! I know this is probably new for both of you (it was new for me), but the current discussion implies that lots of images of 3-D objects by Dutch creators that have been out on Commons for years are now threatened to be taken down. This includes all artworks created less than 90 years ago, so it includes all WWII monuments. For more information see this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:URAA_artist
This is a similar issue as the takedowns that have already started for 2-dimensional artworks by Dutch creators who died 70+ years ago. An example are the artworks by Leo Gestel, who died in 1941, but only those works he created before 1923 are allowed on Commons. Even though in the Netherlands all of his work has fallen into the public domain, the images are stored on servers in the US and therefore fall under US copyright restrictions.
This means that by definition, WWII monuments that are not simply text and include some sculpture or other artwork, are no longer eligible for Commons. My gut feeling is that these monuments are public domain, because it seems to me that a sculpture created for a European municipality in a specific location within that municipality to honor an event within that municipality could not possibly fit the description "first published in the US in year X". I was hoping for some quick explanation I could reuse for the Dutch National Committee, but I guess this is all still new for Wikipedians in general.
Thanks in any case for your time! Jane
2013/3/2, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com:
I don't know about the DMCA take down notice in question, but you need to remember that Europe is a continent with many countries, and FOP is one of the areas that hasn't been harmonised even within the European Union. I'm in the UK which does largely have FOP, but only for three dimensional works that are permanently on Public display. The Houseball is definitely three dimensional but if it was in the UK I'd be wondering if it permanent or temporary? For other WWII stuff in the UK a key consideration is whether it is two or three dimensional - there are some WWII related two d display boards near me which I would have photographed if they were covered by FOP.
My suggestion would be to only go ahead in those countries that have FOP, and include a link to the guidelines we have for commons images from that country.
WSC
On 2 March 2013 10:53, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, WMNL was recently approached for helping start a photo contest for WWII monuments. Based on this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_NC.svg We assumed that these photographs could be used on Wikipedia, but the recent discussions about the DMCA takedown notice for this
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Houseball_(Oldenburg_and_van_Brug...) indicate that FOP in Europe is not really FOP.
To be careful, we have decided to cancel the photo contest idea, though people are of course terribly disappointed about this.
Does anyone know the status of this discussion? Of course, WLM has brought in several thousand of these "possibly-not-FOP" sculptures, as they are often WLM monuments themselves, or are situated directly in front of buildings that are WLM monuments.
Thanks in advance for any info you have - we need a short and sweet way to inform the WWII monument committee and WMNL volunteers why we are cancelling. Jane
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
While I don't want to go into detail (the links speak for themselves), the basic question assumes countries which have Freedom of Panorama.
For example, the Netherlands has full Freedom of Panorama. However, since the servers of the WMF are in the USA and the WMF us a US corporation, the question is whether US copyright law would /also/ apply. Because US Freedom of Panorama does apply to architecture, but not to sculptures and public art. Therefore, under US law, photos of (recent) public sculptures would not be free.
However, this even gets more complicated: this is not about what is /our/ opinion, but what does the Wikimedia Commons community think about it. Are such images at risk to be deleted?
Best, Lodewijk
2013/3/2 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com
Thanks for your quick responses! I know this is probably new for both of you (it was new for me), but the current discussion implies that lots of images of 3-D objects by Dutch creators that have been out on Commons for years are now threatened to be taken down. This includes all artworks created less than 90 years ago, so it includes all WWII monuments. For more information see this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:URAA_artist
This is a similar issue as the takedowns that have already started for 2-dimensional artworks by Dutch creators who died 70+ years ago. An example are the artworks by Leo Gestel, who died in 1941, but only those works he created before 1923 are allowed on Commons. Even though in the Netherlands all of his work has fallen into the public domain, the images are stored on servers in the US and therefore fall under US copyright restrictions.
This means that by definition, WWII monuments that are not simply text and include some sculpture or other artwork, are no longer eligible for Commons. My gut feeling is that these monuments are public domain, because it seems to me that a sculpture created for a European municipality in a specific location within that municipality to honor an event within that municipality could not possibly fit the description "first published in the US in year X". I was hoping for some quick explanation I could reuse for the Dutch National Committee, but I guess this is all still new for Wikipedians in general.
Thanks in any case for your time! Jane
2013/3/2, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com:
I don't know about the DMCA take down notice in question, but you need to remember that Europe is a continent with many countries, and FOP is one
of
the areas that hasn't been harmonised even within the European Union. I'm in the UK which does largely have FOP, but only for three dimensional
works
that are permanently on Public display. The Houseball is definitely three dimensional but if it was in the UK I'd be wondering if it permanent or temporary? For other WWII stuff in the UK a key consideration is whether
it
is two or three dimensional - there are some WWII related two d display boards near me which I would have photographed if they were covered by
FOP.
My suggestion would be to only go ahead in those countries that have FOP, and include a link to the guidelines we have for commons images from that country.
WSC
On 2 March 2013 10:53, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, WMNL was recently approached for helping start a photo contest for WWII monuments. Based on this
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_NC.svg
We assumed that these photographs could be used on Wikipedia, but the recent discussions about the DMCA takedown notice for this
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Houseball_(Oldenburg_and_van_Brug...)
indicate that FOP in Europe is not really FOP.
To be careful, we have decided to cancel the photo contest idea, though people are of course terribly disappointed about this.
Does anyone know the status of this discussion? Of course, WLM has brought in several thousand of these "possibly-not-FOP" sculptures, as they are often WLM monuments themselves, or are situated directly in front of buildings that are WLM monuments.
Thanks in advance for any info you have - we need a short and sweet way to inform the WWII monument committee and WMNL volunteers why we are cancelling. Jane
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Lodewijk, I understand now that the whole thing boils down to "Are such images at risk to be deleted?", whereby the answer is not based so much on clarity of international copyright law as it is on the willingness of the Wikimedia Commons community to accept the risk of a civic case against any individual in that community.
My feeling is that until there is consensus within the Wikimedia Commons (admin) community that no one will be sued for allowing such photographs to remain there, it is not worth the risk of deletion of any single photograph uploaded by any volunteer newbie joining in on a WMNL-sponsored photo contest.
It's sad, but there you have it! Jane
2013/3/2, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org:
While I don't want to go into detail (the links speak for themselves), the basic question assumes countries which have Freedom of Panorama.
For example, the Netherlands has full Freedom of Panorama. However, since the servers of the WMF are in the USA and the WMF us a US corporation, the question is whether US copyright law would /also/ apply. Because US Freedom of Panorama does apply to architecture, but not to sculptures and public art. Therefore, under US law, photos of (recent) public sculptures would not be free.
However, this even gets more complicated: this is not about what is /our/ opinion, but what does the Wikimedia Commons community think about it. Are such images at risk to be deleted?
Best, Lodewijk
2013/3/2 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com
Thanks for your quick responses! I know this is probably new for both of you (it was new for me), but the current discussion implies that lots of images of 3-D objects by Dutch creators that have been out on Commons for years are now threatened to be taken down. This includes all artworks created less than 90 years ago, so it includes all WWII monuments. For more information see this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:URAA_artist
This is a similar issue as the takedowns that have already started for 2-dimensional artworks by Dutch creators who died 70+ years ago. An example are the artworks by Leo Gestel, who died in 1941, but only those works he created before 1923 are allowed on Commons. Even though in the Netherlands all of his work has fallen into the public domain, the images are stored on servers in the US and therefore fall under US copyright restrictions.
This means that by definition, WWII monuments that are not simply text and include some sculpture or other artwork, are no longer eligible for Commons. My gut feeling is that these monuments are public domain, because it seems to me that a sculpture created for a European municipality in a specific location within that municipality to honor an event within that municipality could not possibly fit the description "first published in the US in year X". I was hoping for some quick explanation I could reuse for the Dutch National Committee, but I guess this is all still new for Wikipedians in general.
Thanks in any case for your time! Jane
2013/3/2, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com:
I don't know about the DMCA take down notice in question, but you need to remember that Europe is a continent with many countries, and FOP is one
of
the areas that hasn't been harmonised even within the European Union. I'm in the UK which does largely have FOP, but only for three dimensional
works
that are permanently on Public display. The Houseball is definitely three dimensional but if it was in the UK I'd be wondering if it permanent or temporary? For other WWII stuff in the UK a key consideration is whether
it
is two or three dimensional - there are some WWII related two d display boards near me which I would have photographed if they were covered by
FOP.
My suggestion would be to only go ahead in those countries that have FOP, and include a link to the guidelines we have for commons images from that country.
WSC
On 2 March 2013 10:53, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, WMNL was recently approached for helping start a photo contest for WWII monuments. Based on this
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_NC.svg
We assumed that these photographs could be used on Wikipedia, but the recent discussions about the DMCA takedown notice for this
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Houseball_(Oldenburg_and_van_Brug...)
indicate that FOP in Europe is not really FOP.
To be careful, we have decided to cancel the photo contest idea, though people are of course terribly disappointed about this.
Does anyone know the status of this discussion? Of course, WLM has brought in several thousand of these "possibly-not-FOP" sculptures, as they are often WLM monuments themselves, or are situated directly in front of buildings that are WLM monuments.
Thanks in advance for any info you have - we need a short and sweet way to inform the WWII monument committee and WMNL volunteers why we are cancelling. Jane
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org