Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stjärnhus Gröndal stadplan 1945.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

File:Stjärnhus Gröndal stadplan 1945.jpg

[edit]

Missing evidence (link to Stockholms stadsbyggnadskontor's copyright policy, …) of PD status. Public access ≠ right to reuse and modify for any purpose, even commercially.    FDMS  4    16:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ich sehe du bist deutschprachig, ich auch, das macht die Sache leichter. Das Thema ist hier [1] ergiebig diskutiert worden. Der Bebauungsplan von "Stjärnhus Gröndal" ist von 1945 und fällt unter das selbe diskutierte Thema und Bestimmungen die vor 1992/93 galten, nämlich File:Bihang till riksdagens protokoll år 1960 sida 89.jpg (gelb gekennzeichneter Text, der sagt dass Karten und Pläne in Bebauungsplänen keinem Urheberschutz unterliegen). Ich habe die Beschreibungsseite dementsprechend verdeutlicht. Gruss --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, danke für die Erklärung. Aus der verlinkten Diskussion werde ich nicht viel schlauer, da sie ja auch prozedurell und nicht urheberrechtlich geschlossen wurde. Ich spreche kein Schwedisch, wenn du meinst dass das von dir verlinkte Dokument auch rückwirkend Gültigkeit hat glaube ich dir allerdings darin vertrauen zu können. In diesem Fall wäre es vielleicht hilfreich, wenn du mir den Text kurz definitiv (wann und für was genau anwendbar) zusammenfassen könntest und ich daraus eine eigene Lizenzvorlage für solche Fälle machen würde. Grüße aus dem "Süden",    FDMS  4    17:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ja, ich helfe gerne mit, eine eigene, passende Lizenzvorlage zu schaffen. Das habe ich schon lange gewünscht und wäre gut, denn die Frage taucht immer wieder auf. Die bisherige Lizenz ist „PD-Sweden-URL9“, die ist jedoch undeutlich, denn da steht u.a. This does not extend to included maps, visual art, musical works or poetic works.
Ich bin der Ansicht, dass die hier gemeinten “maps” keine Karten sind sondern „Pläne“ (Bebauungspläne) und daher keinem Urheberschutz unterliegen. Das ist mir auch mehrfach vom Stockholmer Stadtbauamt (Stockholms stadsbyggnadskontor) bestätigt worden. Betreffend Bebauungsplänen (was hier der Fall ist) wurde in der Proposition Nr 17 von 1960, Seite 89 folgendes verdeutlicht: Stundom kan i beslut eller yttrande ske hänvisning till i ärendet uppgjorda kartor eller teckningar; även dessa är då undantagna från upphovsrättsligt skydd. Som exempel nämnes i stadsplaneärenden upprättade kartor och planer. Auf deutsch ungefähr: Mitunter können in Beschlüssen oder Äusserungen auf Karten oder Zeichnungen hingewiesen werden; auch die sind vom urheberrechtlichen Schutz ausgenommen. Als Beispiel können in Angelegenheiten von Städtebau angefertigte Karten und Pläne genannt werden. Das heisst, dass Bebauungspläne 1960 grundsätzlich „frei“ waren.
Diese Regelung ist 1992/93 geändert worden. Da steht u.a. Upphovsrätt skall i fortsättningen gälla inte bara för officiella kartor utan för alla typer av kartor, bl. a. kommunalt upprättade kartor t. ex. stadsplanekartor och liknande (ungefähr: Urheberrecht soll künftig nicht nur für officielle Karten gelten, sondern für alle Typen von Karten, u.a. von der Gemeinde angefertigte Karten, beispielsweise Bebauungspläne oder Ähnliches). Generell gilt in Schweden, dass neue Gesetze nicht rückwirkend gelten, daher bin ich der Ansicht, dass bei Bebauungsplänen von vor 1992/93 die Regelung von 1960 gilt.
Ich hoffe, das kann dir weiterhelfen.
Gruss aus dem "hohen Norden". --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Holger.Ellgaard: Vielleicht stehe ich hier auf der Leitung, aber der Plan ist doch aus 1945, also vor 1960 …    FDMS  4    14:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FDMS4: OK, ich habe mich da wohl ungeschickt ausgedrückt. 1960 wurde das schwedische Urhebergesetz dahingehend verdeutlicht, dass beispielsweise kommunale Bebauungspläne vom urheberrechtlichen Schutz ausgenommen sind. Das galt also schon vor 1960, war nur undeutlich.--Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That change applies retrocactively and maps of this kind older than 1994 may possibly be copyrightable. The matter is complicated. In principle the constitution makes them PD, this as opposed to the opinion by a contributor to that other discussion. What work URL 9 does in this case is disputed. What is not disputed is that the relevant authority can release the maps as PD and I believe Stockholm has done so according to the e-mail Holger Ellgaard showed in the linked discussion. It could also be argued that if the relevant authority says they are free according to the constitution, as Stockholm does here, then they are, and the template is correct. Edaen (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably the right time to invite the other party of the large-scale DR to this discussion – ping Peter Isotalo, Stefan4 and LPfi. As someone who doesn't speak Swedish, I'd welcome it if you could comment in English.    FDMS  4    20:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two articles which deal with the protection of maps in Swedish copyright law:
Article 1 protects maps which meet the threshold of originality. It is unclear exactly how much originality is required, but this map is not just depicting an area but is an architect's impression of how an area should be modified, so it seems very likely that the map meets the threshold of originality. It seems that File:Bihang till riksdagens protokoll år 1960 sida 89.jpg placed the picture in the public domain in 1961 at the latest, but there is also the change to the law mentioned above from the 1990s which may have taken the map out of the public domain, as suggested by User:Edaen. I am not sure whether {{PD-Sweden-URL9}} can be used for this right for maps from this time. The answer is probably hiding in the preparatory works to the change of the law.
Article 49 (database right) protects maps which collect "a large amount of data" (ett stort antal uppgifter) or which are the result of a "significant investment" (väsentlig investering), regardless of whether the map meets the threshold of originality or not. Article 49 contains a reference which says that the conditions in Article 9 apply to this kind of material. Article 9 contains two lists of material: section 1 (free material which is in the public domain) and section 2 (unfree material which may be reproduced in verbatim in some situations). It is unclear whether the reference to Article 9 places Article 49 material in section 1 or section 2 of Article 9. As far as I have understood, the Article 49 protection didn't exist until 1961, and the protection has in either case expired by now as the protection only lasts for 15 years, so Article 49 can be disregarded with respect to this map, but is relevant when discussing other maps. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I refrain from this discussion:
  1. I've invested too much (unsuccessfully) time in this case.
  2. without the help from a lawyer in copyright and/or Stockholms stadsbyggnadskontor (or another municipality's urban planning office), we will not succeed.
  3. My English is too poor and I am not good in the law of copyright, Stefan4 and others are much better.
But I would hope that a solution is going to find, because older urban plans are very illustrative in articles on urban development and urban planning and how the suburbs in Stockholm were planned. And I will follow the discussion with great interest.
Thank You --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell from available legal commentary, maps are always excluded. See the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Sweden URL9 maps, etc. for details. Search for "Olsson" if you want to get straight to discussion about the commentary.
I am also completely opposed any attempts to make private legal interpretations. Legal commentary is available and should be consulted first and foremost.
Peter Isotalo 09:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A private reading of a legal commentary is also a privat interpretation of the law and citing an authoritative source doesn't confer that authority to the reader.
In this case the relevant part is that authorities can release maps if they so choose.
Myndigheterna är inte skyldiga enligt upphovsrättslagen att upplåta nyttjanderätt till enskilda, men upphovsrättslagen begränsar inte myndigheternas möjlighet att förfoga över sin egen upphovsrätt.54 [The authorities are not obliged according to the copyright law to allow use to private subjects, but the copyright law does not restrict the ability of the authorities to manage their own copyright.54]

54 Jfr Ds 2009:44. Det kan noteras att det redan i propositionen till 1973 års ändringar i upphovsrättslagen framfördes att myndigheterna givetvis skulle vara oförhindrade, om så anses lämpligt, att efterge sin upphovsrätt och tillåta eftertryck. Stor generositet skulle enligt föredraganden förväntas i detta hänseende i sådana fall då information är påkallad för att belysa viktiga samhällsfrågor. Se prop. 1973:15 s. 146. [It can be noted that allready in the proposition to the changes of 1973 in the copyright law it was said that the authorities of course should be unhindered to, if considered suitable, to give up their copyright and allow copying. Great generosity should according to the minister of las be expected in cases when information is called for to enlighten important societal question. See prop. 1973:15 p. 146.]SvJT
This has been stated elswhere recently. Holger Ellgaard has a permission from Stockholm, I believe. Edaen (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some years ago I got a general permission (by phone) by Per Kallstenius (dåvarande Stadsarkitekt i Stockholm) and I've a written permission (by e-mail) from May 2013 for File:Stadsplan över Gamla stan 1978.png by Nina Åman, sektionschef norra innerstaden och inre västerort, Stadsbyggnadskontoret.--Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those are favourable decisions under Swedish administrative law and these cases can not be opened again. That ought to be the end of the discussions. Edaen (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, Edaen. A legal commentary actually has merit as an interpretation of law. You can't dismiss that with off-hand references to "private readings" of sources. You're just trying to push your own opinion as equally valid to that of expert. We're dealing with some very complicated legislation here. What you should be doing here is to apply caution.
Peter Isotalo 16:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And please note that there is no such thing as "favourable decisions under Swedish administrative law". Administrative law doesn't even apply here since it all boils down to copyright. Middling civil servants also don't get to set legal precedents of any kind. Specific permissions from municipal employees are only applicable to specific works. It can't simply be extended to similar works.
Peter Isotalo 16:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The info from e-delegationen concerns this kind of cases. That is relevant expert advice. There most certainly is such a thing as a favourable decision under Swedish admin. law. Your statement is contradicted by the statement by e-delegationen (a committee within the Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications that has been tasked with working on open data.) linked to in the earlier discussion.
Däremot kan myndigheten själv inte senare ändra sin bedömning, då denna utgör ett gynnande förvaltningsbeslut. [On the other hand, the authority can not itself change its judgment, since it is a favourable administrative law decision][2]
As per the quoted article in SvJT, an authority can release the copyright and per e-delegationen, a favourable decision can't be changed or tried again. Filling in an OTRS-ticket is a new decision. It's useless to demand that. I borrowed your explanation of what e-delegationen is. Edaen (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate a little on the constitution. There are two ways to interpret the act. According to the Freedom of the Press Act (TF), article 2:1, Swedish citizens have the right to publish official documents and this is considered a fundament of Swedish democracy. However, TF 1:8 could be seen as saying that the copyright status of public documents is regulated in ordinary law ie the Copyright Law (URL). Until the 1970s the opinion was that public documents were free because of the constitution. Between the 1970s and the late 1990s URL was deemed to rule this. Since the late 1990s opinion has again turned towards the interpretation that the constitution has the last word.
(TF 2:1)
Art. 1. Every Swedish citizen shall be entitled to have free access to official documents, in order to encourage the free exchange of opinion and the availability of comprehensive information.

(TF 1:8)
Art. 8. Provisions laid down in law apply in respect of the rights of the originator of a work of literature or art or a photographic image, in respect of rights related to such copyright, and in respect of the ban on reproducing works of literature or art in such a way as to violate cultural values.[3]
Since this is a public document, it is free if the matter is governed directly by the constitution. In the other interpretation things become very complicated. The map was PD until 1994 when copyright to this kind of maps was introduced, also retroactively. There is no Crown copyright in Sweden, still the government, the municipalities and most legal commentary talk about copyright belonging to the public body. It is assumed that public employees have silently agreed to transfer their copyright to the employer. In the only court case I am aware of the government lost (Navy brass band recordings).[4] The public bodies still seem to make to much of this silent agreement but it is to go to far to assume retroactive silent agreements. This could mean that all rights to this kind of maps belong to the creators and that the public bodies are severely restricted in what they can legally do with the material. This interpretation is not standard. It would have major economic and constitutional consequences. There are more arguments in various directions. The very purpose behind much law making in this area during the 1970s to the 1990s was to allow government bodies and municipalities to make business with public information. As noted above, an authority can release the rights to a document, which presupposes that the individual creator has no say.
Things began to change in the late 1990s for several reasons. In the early 2000s the EU's PSI-directive should be implemented, the Swedish government declared that it was not necessary for Sweden to make changes to its laws since public sector documents are free according to the Freedom of the Press Act and other regulations. The EU had some problems with this.[5] Edaen (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TF §2.1 doesn't appear to have much relevance here as, citing myself, […] access ≠ [Swedish as well as non-Swedish citizens'] right to reuse and modify for any purpose, even commercially.    FDMS  4    21:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Foreginers have the same rights in most cases. That is not a copyright restriction. This is about rules for publishers of books, newspapers etc. In some cases there may be conditions for access to FOI-information such as keeping it secret. Besides, this has relevance for Public Sector Information markets. That market is supposed to be Europe-wide. Edaen (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] My point is that neither Swedish citizens citizens are entitled to access it, Swedish as well as non-Swedish citizens are entitled to access it, Swedish as well as non-Swedish citizens are entitled to use it nor Swedish as well as non-Swedish citizens are entitled to use and modify it for certain purposes constitutes a PD release or even a release under other terms acceptable on Commons.    FDMS  4    21:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a foundation for Swedens implementation of EU's PSI-directive. If it were restricted to Swedish citizens it would be in breech of EU's rules. Edaen (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My main point, hopefully even clearer this time, is that not only access, but reuse and modifications, for any purpose, even commercially, have to be explicitly allowed.    FDMS  4    21:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was the question adressed above. If the material is free according to the constitution, it is also free to modify and reuse for any purpose.
(TF 1:1)
In accordance with the principles set out in paragraph one concerning freedom of the press for all, and to secure the free exchange of opinion and availability of comprehensive information, every Swedish citizen shall be free, subject to the rules contained in this Act for the protection of private rights and public safety, to express his or her thoughts and opinions in print, to publish official documents and to communicate information and intelligence on any subject whatsoever.
The Freedom of the Press Act does give that right. It is not just to publish whole document, but also to modify them. Edaen (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(s. 40) Bedömning: Den redan gällande principen att handlingar som enskilda får tillgång till i regel också får vidareutnyttjas behöver inte lagregleras. [Consideration: The already in force being principle that documents to which private subjects get access as a rule may be reused need not be regulated in law.][6]
This is not one of the thorny issues. Edaen (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Specific permission for another map[7] and generally.[8] Edaen (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason that these particular "permissions" would be exempt from the standard procedure used for Commons:OTRS?
Peter Isotalo 12:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above it is pointless to demand new communication with Stockholm in relation to this. Holger Ellgaard could of course send them to OTRS, but an aspect of this is whether Swedish authorities have sufficient rights to release the maps, something which is best dealt with openly. Edaen (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have we ever allowed "open" permissions?
Peter Isotalo 17:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Generally yes, but if the eMail is relevant, it should be sent again (not forwarded) to OTRS so there is definitive evidence of its existence.    FDMS  4    17:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have understood it is common practice to send one's own correspondence to OTRS, so the rights' owner doesn't have to start over with persons knowing nothing of the background. By "sent again", do you mean the resend function of the SMTP protocol? That may be a good option, but not well supported by many mail clients. If permission is clearly stated in an individual e-mail, that e-mail can be forwarded with all headers included. The important ones are the Received lines, which are hard to fake reliably (and faking them would be a much more severe crime than just being "mistaken" about other details). --LPfi (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More definitive rules regarding forwarded eMails are currently under discussion; I would personally rather not accept a forwarded statement from a governmental agency (or unlike some other agents any other notable person/organisation). No, I was not aware of "send again" in SMTP. Would modifying forwarded eMails really be a crime?    FDMS  4    13:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you send a forged permission statement, then this would be a crime at least under Swedish law.[9] Is this what you meant by "modifying forwarded eMails"? --Stefan4 (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did; what about the USA?    FDMS  4    14:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that enough? Mail Holger Ellgaard to Nina Åman 2013-05-29 + Mail, Nina Åman to Holger Ellgaard, 2013-05-29 --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as per this long discussion, a proper OTRS release would be require. JuTa 05:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Stjärnhus_Gröndal_stadplan_1945.jpg&oldid=155807250"