Commons:Deletion requests/File:LillienhoffskaSkylt.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Sweden. COM:FOP#Sweden does not cover works of literature. Stefan4 (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know how old the sign is, but I think it's from the 1940s, and it is displayed along a public street, if that makes any difference. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- You would have to prove that it is in the public domain in both Sweden and the United States. The copyright expires in Sweden 70 years after the text was written (unless the text has been published or the writer of the text has disclosed his identity which seems unlikely). The copyright expires in the United States 95 years after the text was first placed there. It is currently less than 95 years and possibly less than 70 years. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've added this template now to the flie page:
{{FoP-Sweden}} --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- As stated above, that template only applies to works of art, but this is a work of literature. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. The text is so small on this photo that it can hardly be read, and thus it is only incidental to the artwork of the sign. I guess we'll have to let somone else decide. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- The whole purpose of the image is the sign, and the whole purpose of the sign is the text, and besides the incidental exception only applies to works of art but not to works of literature. The proposal to also apply the incidental exception to works of literature was rejected. See the government's proposition 2004/05:110 pp. 195-196. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I still believe, at least, that a text should be clearly visible as a readily legible text to be considered of primary importance on the valuable work of art that this sign indisputably is. This image should thus go under the work of art regulation rather than the literary work regulation. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's not what the copyright law says. This picture constitutes a 'copy' of the text on the sign per the definition in the InfoSoc Directive. See the government's proposition 2004/05:110, which specifically discusses this. Literary works, such as the text on the sign, are exempted from COM:DM#Sweden and COM:FOP#Sweden, the former per pp. 195-196 in the government's proposition 2004/05:110. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think I've made it clear enough, without having to repeat myself too many times, that this is not the type of (legible!?!?) "litetary work" that that law is intended to address. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Again, read the government's proposition 2004/05:110, including the definition of a copy (given somewhere in the proposition and also in for example w:Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening). The text is clearly readable, so the photograph constitutes a copy of the literary work, and you can only use literary works if you obtain permission or if you depend on an exception in the copyright law, but no such exception applies in this case. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- You've made your point, and now even threatened me (as I see it) in another discussion. If one of your objectives at Commons is to police this kind of thing, I'm sorry we are at odds. We have no idea who you are, what your background is, what your expertise might be, nor why you don't want signs like this on Commons, but you want your way anyway. That, to me, is a bit disturbing. I don't interpret these laws and background texts at all as strictly as you do, and in my opinion they do not include and do not apply to a Commons upload such as this case. The legal restraints are intended to protect literary work of another kind, not a sign like this posted on a public street where the text is hardly legible and written by someone unknown. We can stop going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about this now, because we're not going to get past our difference in opinion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Again, read the government's proposition 2004/05:110, including the definition of a copy (given somewhere in the proposition and also in for example w:Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening). The text is clearly readable, so the photograph constitutes a copy of the literary work, and you can only use literary works if you obtain permission or if you depend on an exception in the copyright law, but no such exception applies in this case. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think I've made it clear enough, without having to repeat myself too many times, that this is not the type of (legible!?!?) "litetary work" that that law is intended to address. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's not what the copyright law says. This picture constitutes a 'copy' of the text on the sign per the definition in the InfoSoc Directive. See the government's proposition 2004/05:110, which specifically discusses this. Literary works, such as the text on the sign, are exempted from COM:DM#Sweden and COM:FOP#Sweden, the former per pp. 195-196 in the government's proposition 2004/05:110. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I still believe, at least, that a text should be clearly visible as a readily legible text to be considered of primary importance on the valuable work of art that this sign indisputably is. This image should thus go under the work of art regulation rather than the literary work regulation. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- The whole purpose of the image is the sign, and the whole purpose of the sign is the text, and besides the incidental exception only applies to works of art but not to works of literature. The proposal to also apply the incidental exception to works of literature was rejected. See the government's proposition 2004/05:110 pp. 195-196. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. The text is so small on this photo that it can hardly be read, and thus it is only incidental to the artwork of the sign. I guess we'll have to let somone else decide. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- As stated above, that template only applies to works of art, but this is a work of literature. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator. 99of9 (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
OV kept
[edit]
Please see this! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete Why wasn't I notified of this undeletion? The crown is a non-issue. The copyright of the text is the important bit. --99of9 (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
