Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vigdis Finnbogadottir.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Since the 2006 changes to Icelandic copyright law, copyright in non-artistic photos subsists for 50 years. --Haukurth (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- also see: Image:Vigdis-Finnbogadottir.jpg --Butko (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Question Is this law retro-active? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good question. Here's the law: [1] What do you think? Haukurth (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I kind of always assumed it was but now I can't quite see why. I remember discussing this with Lupo back in the day but now I can't find that conversation. Hmm... Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Nordic_countries currently says that Iceland's extension of this was the only one in the Nordic countries to be retroactive. That doesn't seem particularly likely on the face of it. I would be happy to find out that I've been wrong on this. But if we really are going to use this provision then we need a template for it, pd-old is inappropriate. See Category:Politicians of Iceland for a lot of images like this. Haukurth (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- When we discussed it, you had pointed out that this was Iceland's implementation of EU directive 93/98/EEC (yes, even though Iceland is not a EU member). I would say article 63 makes this law retroactive. Lupo 08:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's what I've always assumed but note that article 63 says: "The provisions of this Act shall also cover literary and artistic works which were created before the entry into force of the Act. The same shall apply to performances, audio and video recordings, cf. Chapter V of the Act." This certainly makes the copyright extension to 70 pma retroactive, no doubt about that. But it doesn't seem to handle the later (2006) non-artistic photographs extension. The photographs in question are not literary or artistic works, nor are they performances, audio or video recordings. Haukurth (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a lawyer but I do know some lawyers and I might ask around. But even if we get a positive result these particular images should probably still be deleted since there's no actual proof that they were taken before 1983. And the law would probably still be retroactive for images that were still under pseudo-copyright in 2006 so we'd actually need an image from 1981 or earlier. Lastly, no argument has been presented as to why these images should be considered non-artistic. Haukurth (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a lawyer. However, no law can be Retroactive. A law from 2006 can only affect photos since 2006. A picture that became public domain before 2006 is still public domain and this cannot be legally retracted. -130.208.183.175 17:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it can. Copyright terms have been retroactively extended many times. The Icelandic law is explicitly retroactive in regards to everything except photographs, the question is if it is for photographs as well. Haukurth (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- The law says that non-artistic photographs are (henceforth) copyrighted for 50 years. I would seriously doubt that it would stand in a court of law, that this means that pictures that already are out of copyright become copyrighted again, because according to all texts on Icelandic law (which I've seen), retroactive laws can only be considered legal if no ones rights are infringed on. I would assume that, if the picture became public domain before February 28 2006, it still must be, if it was still in copyright at the time, then it would remain so until the 50 years have passed. I would also assume that even if the law was changed today to 10 years of copyright, then this picture would still remain copyrighted until the 50 years have passed, so they could still increase it if isn't yet public domain. Still this is an interesting matter so I'm going to talk to some lawyers about it when I have the opportunity. -130.208.183.175 10:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- The extension from 50 years to 70 years pma was explicitly retroactive and put stuff that had entered the public domain back under a copyright monopoly, that's completely clear in the law. The photograph extension doesn't seem to have been explicitly retroactive, I still mean to ask a lawyer or two about this when I get the chance. In any case, the images should be deleted since it isn't at all clear that those photographs are below the threshold of originality for full copyright. Certainly no argument has been presented for that. Haukurth (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a lawyer. However, no law can be Retroactive. A law from 2006 can only affect photos since 2006. A picture that became public domain before 2006 is still public domain and this cannot be legally retracted. -130.208.183.175 17:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a lawyer but I do know some lawyers and I might ask around. But even if we get a positive result these particular images should probably still be deleted since there's no actual proof that they were taken before 1983. And the law would probably still be retroactive for images that were still under pseudo-copyright in 2006 so we'd actually need an image from 1981 or earlier. Lastly, no argument has been presented as to why these images should be considered non-artistic. Haukurth (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's what I've always assumed but note that article 63 says: "The provisions of this Act shall also cover literary and artistic works which were created before the entry into force of the Act. The same shall apply to performances, audio and video recordings, cf. Chapter V of the Act." This certainly makes the copyright extension to 70 pma retroactive, no doubt about that. But it doesn't seem to handle the later (2006) non-artistic photographs extension. The photographs in question are not literary or artistic works, nor are they performances, audio or video recordings. Haukurth (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- When we discussed it, you had pointed out that this was Iceland's implementation of EU directive 93/98/EEC (yes, even though Iceland is not a EU member). I would say article 63 makes this law retroactive. Lupo 08:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I kind of always assumed it was but now I can't quite see why. I remember discussing this with Lupo back in the day but now I can't find that conversation. Hmm... Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Nordic_countries currently says that Iceland's extension of this was the only one in the Nordic countries to be retroactive. That doesn't seem particularly likely on the face of it. I would be happy to find out that I've been wrong on this. But if we really are going to use this provision then we need a template for it, pd-old is inappropriate. See Category:Politicians of Iceland for a lot of images like this. Haukurth (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good question. Here's the law: [1] What do you think? Haukurth (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- de-indent. Someone should contact Iceland's government as to whether they consider this picture copyrighted. -Nard the Bard 18:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per Haukurth MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
