Template talk:FoP-Sweden

 

French version

Hi there ! Salut !

I've noticed some mistakes in the french version. Il y a des fautes dans la version française.

"Un œuvre d'art peut être représentée se elle est placée"... devrait être: Une œuvre d'art peut être représentée si elle est placée...

I don't know how to correct by myself. Je ne sais pas corriger moi-même.

Thanks. Merci.

--Jebulon (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Analysis procedure/results?

The template states FoP in Sweden is being analyzed. By whom and where is that analysis made? Is there for instance a discussion page on Commons?--LittleGun (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no discussion currently on Commons that I'm aware of (and I probably would be aware). I've heard talk about Wikimedia Foundation Lawyers having the decision translated to English for analysis. I know some people have wanted to wait for the outcome of that, but I don't know if there's been any sort of statement made. Personally, I thought it would be reasonable to wait for the decision to go into effect before proceeding. Today was the last day for appealing the decision, but I don't know if it has been appealed. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Sweden decided not to appeal: [1].--LittleGun (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Do you know if there are any statements from lawyers that might be worth waiting for? (Keeping in mind that Wikimedia's lawyers will typically not make public statements describing ongoing or past practices of their client as legally problematic – I think sometimes people forget that the Foundation's lawyers are not independent and impartial legal analysts.) If not, I think it's time to discuss the scope and issues to consider for deletion nominations. COM:VP/C would be the appropriate venue for that. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. According to this:[2], a WMF lawyer will participate in upcoming discussions at Wikimedia Commons (posted july 12). I am not sure if that means the lawyer will initiate any talks.--LittleGun (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Subjects out of copyright

This template has been applied to a number of photographs of buildings and sculpture where freedom of panorama doesn't really apply because the architect and/or artist has been dead for more than 70 years (eg. Mariatorget - Södermalm - Stockholm0309.jpg). In those circumstances the current content of the template is unnecessarily restrictive, and I'm concerned that in the event of the current rather bonkers court resolution being upheld, the presence of this template may trigger a wholly unnecessary deletion. Is there a better template that can be used to clearly indicate the building/sculpture is in the public domain due to the demise of its architect/artist?. Or should I just remove the template with an appropriate comment?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Chris j wood: {{Art Photo}} with the artwork license parameter containing an appropriate PD tag is, I would say, the most appropriate solution. For an example, see the changes I made to File:Djurgårdsbron 070610 Freyja.JPG. Of course, that's a bit of work, and removing the tag from files where it doesn't apply should be fine as well. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The BUS vs. Wikimedia Sweden verdict applies to artworks only. The FoP regarding buildings have never been contested and probably never will because the swedish copyright lag more unambiguous writing about the right to depict buildings. /ℇsquilo 09:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Rename to Template:NoFoP-Sweden or not?

By such clause, I would rather believe that FoP usages are banned by Swedish government, because still lack of exemptions in any possible areas. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to rename this template. It is still allowed to publish photos of public art on the internet. The law has not changed. The only thing that has happened is that the district court has decided that photos of public art can not be catalogized in the manner Wikimedia Sweden did on the (now closed) site offentligkonst.se. /ℇsquilo 07:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

If any precautionary measures is to be taken, it would be to remove (or hide) geographical coordinates from all files that use this template. That would make any copyright infringement catalogization impossible. /ℇsquilo 07:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Esquilo: But Swedish government may also issue at least one sanction decision against WMF headquarter, isn't that? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mardus: ^^ As you changed File:Freedom_of_Panorama_world_map.png years ago to reflect SE as not ok. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

In File:Freedom of Panorama world map.png, Sweden is red since 2017 2016, per a finished court case that was begun by the Swedish collecting society for visual arts. I did not colour Sweden red, but someone else did, since Sweden is no longer FoP, because the court ruled, that Article 24 (generally permitting FoP in its language) of their copyright law pertaining to works of art (I believe this also involves architecture) does not apply to online publication. A pity. -Mardus /talk 09:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

If my memory serves, FoP of buildings is handled in a different paragraph, with different wording, so not affected by these decisions. --LPfi (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Turns out, that looking at file history, I was the one after all, who coloured Sweden red. And for good reason. -Mardus /talk 12:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Relevant information about Freedom of Panorama in Sweden, specifically citing the court case:

• Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom_of_panorama. -Mardus /talk 12:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mardus and Gazebo: But then, File:Freedom of Panorama in Europe.svg shows that Sweden is grey (Inconclusive or unknown), why don't you also change that? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The SVG file is maintained by another editor. The PNG file reflects the situation with regard to FOP and the possibility to upload works to Commons, not necessarily the permissivness of FOP in Sweden itself.

In particular, the court case limits FOP to outside the Internet, but not online:

On 4 April 2016, the Supreme Court of Sweden ruled that article 24 does not extend to publication in an online repository, regardless of commercial intent.

Some think the Swedish FOP situation is 'inconclusive', because Swedish copyright law says one thing, but the court decision says something else. We have to go by the decisions of two instances of Sweden's courts, because a Swedish collecting society went after the Swedish Wikimedia chapter. In some instances, a court in an EU member state can extend restrictions across the EU, if it so wanted. With regard to uploads in Commons, the Swedish courts have not so far, and therefore it's best for Commons editors and uploaders not to push their luck. Ignoring a decision of the court might put Wikimedia in legal risk again, and possibly to a greater extent. -Mardus /talk 04:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mardus: So you're also supporting to rename this template, aren't you? (If you're opposing me even said those, then in your opinion what should we do regarding this template?) --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Upthread, I had not argued for or against the renaming of the template. There are arguments on both sides: One is to point out a technical reason, that renaming a relatively heavily-used template would create an unnecessary redirect, and in each file where the template is used, it would have to be renamed (arduous work).

Due to two separate court decisions about not permitting publication to online repositories, and not permitting linking to depictions of copyrighted artworks [on Commons], I vote

 Weak support, and lean towards renaming the template, but only by administrators. -Mardus /talk 20:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

PS: Is using {{Inconclusive}} under COM:FOP Sweden really proper? {{Inconclusive}}, if I remember correctly, is a CheckUser-related template, just like Likely,  It looks like a duck to me, Checkuser is not a crystal ball., The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says, etc. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

{{Inconclusive}} is used for other purposes, too; template documentation does not show any restrictions on use, at least if used in context. In light of these court decisions, {{Inconclusive}} does not seem to be correctly applies in that context, but that tag was applied by someone else, due possibly to confusion around what the law has in writing, and what the courts have decided. -Mardus /talk 20:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe I should ask other community members that participated the COM:DR discussion? @Stefan2, Nilfanion, Slowking4, John Andersson (WMSE), and Edaen: @Riggwelter, Boberger, Obelix, Hangsna, and Sicherlich: @Laaknor, NickK, Nemo bis, Oop, and LPfi: @AHeneen, Averater, Vilhelm.s, Thincat, and McGrath Clan Kirk: @Jcb: ^^ --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I would reiterate again my argument that we should follow the law unless we have a specific legal opinion that using these photos on Commons would be dangerous for users. We have a clear provision in these photos that using photos is legal. We have a court decision that some specific use may be illegal in Sweden but this does not mean it is illegal in the rest of the world (our servers are not in Sweden, so is the majority of our users) — NickK (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@NickK: But again, the Swedish government may have rights to make sanctions to the US Wikimedia Foundation Headquarter, can't they? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: WMF has a Legal department exactly for this purpose: to evaluate legal risks. They are paid to work on topics like this one, so you should probably contact WMF Legal if you want to get a legal opinion on whether publishing photos of Swedish FOP works has any risk for WMF and/or Commons users — NickK (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Using the photos in print is still allowed, so most reusers are legally OK. The government has no rights to sue, only the copyright owners and their representatives have. The Swedish collecting society for visual arts has said it will not sue individual users and uploaders, and probably won't, as that would have a risk of more badwill than they can take. Any risk is mostly hypothetical, and I have the impression they cannot ask for damages other than if a take down request isn't honoured. But IANAL, WMF's opinion would be good to have. --LPfi (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@LPfi: COM:PRP says "The copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to." this means that "has no rights to sue" doesn't mean that they can't sue, also Liuxinyu970226 is asking you oreveryone that they have right to make sanctions or not, not sue. Sanctions can also be made without sue. --117.136.55.137 23:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

A little  Support, because it seems confirmed by this section, @VulpesVulpes42: though. --223.104.7.138 00:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you wrote this before the last comments, which do not support buildings being not OK.

 Support renaming, this isn't a true FOP claim, as that article of law doesn't allowed to be usable on the Internet, Unless if Commons can be offline, it's of course violating COM:LICENSE, Esquilo's comments look very like the first' second and fifth cases of COM:PRP. --117.136.55.137 23:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I must object to your interpretation of my comment. None of the cases in COM:PRP applies in this case. Instead, you should read the court verdict. It applies only to the site offentligkonst.se and the manner the photos was published there. The manner. Not the fact that they was published, because that is allowed. /ℇsquilo 06:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Isn't our manner quite similar? After all, we systematically categorize images... Gestumblindi (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

At least the template can be used for buildings, for which the suggested new name makes no sense. I have forgot the details of the verdict, so will not say much about other images right now. My impression, however, is that the important part is how the supreme court answered the district court's question – and that that answer was bonkers. So it is not only a question about whether somebody would sue, but also about whether they would win. That latter question is not handled by PRP. --LPfi (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@LPfi: If you think that this template can be used (and only?) for buildings, why don't you restore it again? To avoid edit war? FTTB I marked both png and svg files as {{Factual accuracy}} --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I expressed my view on the file talk page. I am not a lawyer and not the maintainer of the file, so I won't revert, at least not for now. (The revert link was odd, as it did not show what version I'd revert to, and neither possible intervening changes.) -- LPfi (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)