Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rajavartijoita passintarkastuksessa.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.
According to the Finnish law, decisions and statements by an authority or a public body of Finland are exempt from copyright (§ 9.1). This, however, does not apply to independent works included in these decisions or statements (§ 9.2). [1]
Independent works are works which are not created to be part of the decision or statement:
- Päätöksen tai vastaavan osana tai liitteenä oleva teos on kuitenkin usein sellainen, että sitä ei ole valmistettu nimenomaan päätöksen osaksi tai sen liitteeksi. Tällaisessa tapauksessa ei ole kohtuullista, että myös liitteenä oleva teos automaattisesti menettäisi tekijänoikeussuojan. (section 3.2.1.)
- 1 monetissa tarkoitettuihin asiakirjoihin sisältyviin itsenäisiin teoksiin ei sovelleta 1 momentin määräystä. Näitä teoksia ei ole nimenomaan valmistettu ko. päätösten tai lausumien osaksi tai niiden liitteiksi. (Pirkko-Liisa Haarmann (2005) Tekijänoikeus ja lähioikeudet, s. 95. Talentum: Helsinki)
I believe that this photograph is such an independent work and hence is not in the public domain. Samulili 20:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep However, according to the opinion of the Constitutional board of the Parliament (PeVL 7/2005), there are no independent works as parts of the works mentioned in § 9.1 in normal cases. In my opinion, § 9.2 means works added as appendices to the authority decision. Such appendices may include works prepared by private parties for the authority. The photo in question, on the other hand, has been purposely added by the authority to the body of the work. If such photo were copyrighted, it would invalidate the free right to copy the public document integral part of which it is. However, quaranteeing this right is the purpose of § 9.1. The law is somewhat unclear, but in my opinion, we should not engage in paranoia. If the Ministry of Interior disagrees with us, it will surely inform us. --MPorciusCato 07:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I drop my case. Samulili 17:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
