I agree with en/Commons user Lupo who has, referring to the discussion at
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Grundsatzfragen
written:
"Now, the problem is this:
freedomdefined.org states that a "free"
work "must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts,
etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the
freedoms enumerated above." That would mean that we'd need to look
beyond copyrights, and that the foundation's licensing policy did not
consider COAs and the like "free" works, even if they were fine
copyright-wise, because their use is often restricted by other laws.
Ugh. Looks like the overarching "free culture" activism expressed at
freedomdefined.org has some rather drastic and unpleasant consequences
for us".
There is a non exhaustive list of non-free content (content which can
be used for any purpose) in the German Wikipedia at:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilfe:FAQ_Rechtliches#Sind_alle_Inhalte_der_Wi…
According to the free content definition we cannot show at commons
(nor in the local branches without EDP):
* pictures of living persons (because according to German law
commercial use is only allowed with the content of the person AND it
is strictly forbidden to manipulate pictures, decision of
Bundesverfassungsgericht)
* pictures of coat of arms which are used by an institution (because
there are non-copyright-restrictions in all cases)
*pictures of Geschmacksmuster-protected objects like cars
*the Olympic rings
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Olympic_Games
and so on.
Klaus Graf
Hi Klaus and everyone,
I don't speak German :( so could you tell me what is the attitude to
non-free content quoted for the purpose of comment or criticism, which
is sometimes allowable under EU and German legislation I believe. Would
it also need an EDP for each case, or do other considerations apply? -- luke