[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?

Fae faewik+commons at gmail.com
Sun Mar 3 09:24:25 UTC 2013

On 3 March 2013 06:50, James Alexander <jamesofur at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Tobias Oelgarte <
> tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> The problem are not the European laws. It are the US laws that don't
>> recognize the European FOP. That means it would be perfectly legal to host
>> such images on an European server (in a country that recognizes FOP), but
>> not on US servers, because they are subject to US law.
>  I'm sorry, I keep seeing this argument and while I can understand the
> basic idea every time I see it I feel like little kitten dies. There is no
> doubt that the US FOP laws are a little insane and that the EU ones are
> generally much more lenient, however, it is obviously far far more
> complectated then that. There are plenty of EU laws which would are
> applicable to site/image hosting which are far more complicated and harder
> (or impossible) for us to follow. Overall the laws in the US have still
> tended to be much much better to host, and that doesn't even get into the
> problem of hosting in multiple locations and still trying to serve to a
> site hosted (or with staff) in the US.

*No kittens were harmed during this discussion*

We should keep an open mind, and the location of the servers to
support the global movement should be reviewed and seen to be reviewed
on a periodic basis, if nothing else international law, economics and
political stability, changes every year. By default, we would never
change unless there were jolly good reasons to justify the hassle and
expense; though folks are always going to enjoy challenging the status
quo, which is probably a healthy thing and the kittens get their
dinners regardless.


More information about the Wikimedia-l mailing list