Excactly. And that is worrysome. If this was the meaning of the licensing policy (which I assume was not), a lot of free pictures should go. I hope that the foundation gives confirmation that this is not the case.

Bryan

On 5/22/07, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com wrote:

...

Following a deletion debate on Commons [1], we are left with the problem whether or not Public domain images that are under other restrictions, such as coats of arms, are allowed under the Foundation Licensing policy. If I quote Erik Moeller, from another thread [2] on the mailing list:

'[...]the licensing policy has been specifically formulated to avoid that problem. It requires content to be under a Free Content License, which is defined as "a license which meets the terms of the Definition of Free Cultural Works _specific to licenses_".[...]'

However, since we are talking about public domain, this does not apply for this image, since public domain is not a license. This means that another section of the resolution applies:

'[...] or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above.'

Which is not the case, this specific image is under more restrictions; see the deletion debate for details. Is this analysis correct? Or should we just treat public domain as a "free content license"?

Bryan (cc'd to commons-l)

[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SilaTonga.svg [2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-April/029468.html

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_Wik...

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

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Klaus Graf wrote: ......

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_Wik...

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