Commons:Deletion requests/Photos tagged as PD-FinlandGov

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.

Photos tagged as PD-FinlandGov

These images are tagged as tagged as {{PD-FinlandGov}}, but are most certainly not covered under section 9 of the Finnish Copyright Act. They are either not documents or they are independent works contained in the documents.

List of files

-- 90.191.109.9 07:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

As for File:Avoautossa.jpg, I must have written the wrong template by mistake when I was about to correct from PD-Sweden-photo to PD-Finland50. I have now changed the license. --Jonund (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, striking it.

Possibly File:D-8 Armored Car.jpg also falls under {{PD-Finland50}}. I'm not sure how to judge if this old photograph is a "work of art" or not. 90.191.109.9 17:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does not qualify for work of art. Finnish copyright cases have been very strict about the criteria. A photo should have obvious creative flair unique to the artist so that no one else could be expected to have created the same image, had they been in their place at the time, with their equipment, etc. --Pitke (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I have corrected the license for File:D-8 Armored Car.jpg. It is a photograph taken in 1942, from the Finnish Wartime Photograph Archive.--KMJKWhite (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish Copyright Council: (1995:5 Standardi, teostaso, luettelosuoja)
Tekijänoikeuslain 9 §:ssä määritellään ne teokset, joihin ei ole tekijänoikeutta. Päätöksillä ja lausumilla tarkoitetaan lain esitöiden mukaan sellaisia tahdonilmaisuja ja lausumia, jotka viranomainen ja muu julkinen elin on antanut kirjallisessa muodossa. Suulliset lausumat ovat periaatteessa tekijänoikeussuojan alaisia. Tekijänoikeuslain 9 § koskee julkisten elimien kertomuksia, ehdotuksia, mietintöjä ja tuomioistuimen jäsenen eriävää mielipidettä. Lausumista komiteanmietinnössä todetaan seuraavaa:
"Lausumalla tarkoitetaan jotain, mikä on ilmaistu kielellisin keinoin. Näin ollen kartat, piirrokset ja vastaavat eivät sinänsä voi kuulua säännöksen piiriin. Kuitenkin jos päätökseen tai lausumaan liitetään esimerkiksi kartta tai piirros tai jos niitä siteerataan, ne tulevat päätöksen tai asiakirjan osaksi liitetyiltä tai siteeratuilta osin ja kuuluvat säännöksen alaisuuteen. Säännös koskee vain viranomaisen tai julkisen elimen itsensä tekemiä asiakirjoja, ei sen sijaan esimerkiksi asian yhteydessä annettuja asiantuntijalausuntoja. Mutta jos viranomainen liittää päätökseensä tai lausumaansa yksityisen lausunnon tai siteeraa sitä, tulee se liitetyiltä tai siteeratuilta osin osaksi päätöstä tai lausumaa ja jää vaille tekijänoikeussuojaa. Jos tekijänoikeuslain 9 §:n mukaisessa asiakirjassa vain viitataan siitä erilliseen teokseen, teos jää säännöksen soveltamisalan ulkopuolelle." (komiteanmietintö 1992:4 s. 114). –Makele-90 (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And how does that comment helps us? Eventually if u post the Swedish version I could understand some things.--Sanandros (talk) 06:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main point seems to be that if they are needed in a citation, maps/drawings etc can be used elsewhere, but not if they are simply used as separate entities. I actually have wondered about this, having uploaded some of these photos extracted from the accident investigation board's reports a few years ago. I guess we should (sadly) delete them. --Yaamboo (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is also how I have interpreted the issue. It isn't whether the image is in the public domain, it is the incorrect use of this PD tag. These images, most likely, are in the public domain, but this PD tag appears to be inappropriate. Since an interested Finnish speaker hasn't stepped forward to correct the tag, or create the proper one if it doesn't exist, deletion is the next option. Given the significant number of images currently on Wikimedia that are incorrectly using this tag, and assuming the requestor continues on this endeavor, eventually someone knowledgeable in Finland's copyright laws will step in to clarify the tag, or create a proper one.--KMJKWhite (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The key part of the above text, which is a preliminary work for the Copyright Act, translates as:

The article 9 of the Copyright Act defines the works which are not covered by the copyright. Decisions and statements mean according to the preliminary works of the act such expressions of will and statements which the authority has given in written form. Oral statements are, in princiole, covered by the copyright. The Article 9 covers reports, proposals, memoranda of public bodies, and dissents by judges. The committee (of the 1992 amendment of the 1962 act, translator's note) notes the following on the statements:

"A statement means something expressed in language. Thus maps, drawings and such cannot be covered by the rule independently. Yet, if a decision or a statement has, for instamce, a map or a drawimg as an attachment or they are used as citations, the parts appended or cited in the decision or statement become parts of the statement or decision as far as they were appended or cited and thus, belong under the rule."

The rule applies only to documents composed by the authority or the public body, not, for instance, to expert statements given in conjunction with the handling of the matter. But should the authority append its statement or decision with a private statement, or shouls it cite one, the appended or cited part becomes a part of the decision or statement and is left without copyright protection. If a document covered by the Article 9 of the Copyright Act only refers to a work separate from it, the work is not covered by the rule.

The text is quite clear. If a photo is part of the document that qualifies as a statement (as annual reports definitely do), it is part of the statement. This is also clear from the purpose of the article 9. The objective is to allow dissemination of authority statements e.g. by photocopying. If the authority statement would be copiable o ly by removing all images, it would defeat the purpose of the article. --MPorciusCato (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By some googling what I did I think that the deletion argument by delete because pictures are independent works contained in the documents. is false. In example Henrik Ungern 2.3.2007 writes in his presentation that if map is included in law, decisions or statement it is not protected by copyright because article 9 of copyright law. (lakiin, asetukseen tai viranomaispäätökseen sisältyvään karttaan ei tekijänoikeutta [1]). Also w:fi:Tekijänoikeusneuvosto in their statement 2014:1 wrote that independent (written) work of art included in patent request was covered by article 9 and it was not protected by copyright law. However technical drawings in same document was not protected because they weren't considered as work of art, but there was background information of the law in same statement that which says that law means that if the pictures (or other media) is part of the decision or statement it is left without copyright protection. Copyright protected works of art can used as appendices and they are under article 9 only if they are important/integral part of the decision or statement. [2] . Third thing which I noted that the article 9 was changed at 1.1.2006 to its current form (821/2005) and i before that it was just "Law or statements doesn't have copyright protection" and after that it was more detailed. I however need to check what is exact wording and what it means and if the change was retroactive. (most likely not) --Zache (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of Finland's copyright law change of 2005 says that change will retroactive eg. it did extend the protection of existing works, but it doesn't change status of existing derivative works. Eg. law, decision or statement which was published under old copyright law stayed as same. (Lähtökohtana on, että lailla ei ole vaikutusta ennen lain voimaantuloa tapahtuneisiin oikeuksien siirtoihin. Jos joku on sopinut teoksen tai muun suojan kohteen käytöstä ennen lain voimaantuloa, hän voi edelleen mainitun sopimuksen mukaisesti levittää, näyttää tai muulla tavoin käyttää tätä teosta tai suojan kohdetta samassa laajuudessa kuin ennen lain voimaantuloa.", HE 28/2004 vp page 140) --Zache (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Finnish copyright law (1961 -> 1.1.2006) 9 §. Lakeihin ja asetuksiin sekä viranomaisen tai muun julkisen elimen päätöksiin ja lausumiin ei ole tekijänoikeutta. [3], [4]. --Zache (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tekijänoikeusneuvoston lausunto 1989:13. Picture of the coin which was used in official document was under article 9 and not covered by copyright protection.[5] --Zache (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for pictures from documents which were published before 1.1.2006. No clear opinion yet for pictures from documents published after that. --Zache (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you cite above (Lähtökohtana on...) actually isn't about the date when the original document was published. It just says that if someone lawfully copied the document before 2006 then one can continue using it after the amendment enters into force. Other than that I see no reason to think that the amendment isn't retroactive regarding any document regardless of its publishing date. So, theoretically if we started to use public domain work on Wikipedia before 2006 then we could continue using it even if it's no longer in public domain. But keeping such works on Commons as free content is problematic as reusers, who start using works after amendment entered into force, don't really have the right to use such works without permission.

Also, it's not clear that use of independent works included in documents was free before 2006. All we can tell for sure is that 2006 amendment made it more clear that it use of independent works included in documents isn't free. 90.191.109.9 17:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

citation needed. :) So far i have fetched all the legal documents so now it should be your turn. ( Tekijänoikeuskomitean VII mietintö should be relevant one ) Just curious, do you read finnish? --Zache (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just questioning how do you draw such conclusions from given documents/citations. I read Finnish poorly with help of a dictionary and yet I'm quite sure that your quote above is only about if the reusers should stop using the work if the law has changed. I don't see a mention of a "publishing date". Maybe you, MPorciusCato or someone else can give a precise translation of this citation if it really is relevant. I understand that the earlier redaction of the law didn't specify that independent works included in documents were copyrighted. Yet, it didn't specify that they were covered by article 9 either, isn't it? 90.191.109.9 21:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It basically says that in this context which are discussing that if work (laws, decisions and statements etc) was under article 9 it will stay in same extent after the change. With more clearly even though there is no exactly such thing in Finland than public domain, but if this is easier to understand. If the work was published as public domain under the old law it will stay after the change as public domain. --Zache (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly it says that, especially the publishing part? There's a difference between the date when the public document was initially published and the date when reusers copied it and started using it. Do you consider the latter also as "publishing"? 90.191.109.9 06:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hän voi edelleen mainitun sopimuksen mukaisesti levittää, näyttää tai muulla tavoin käyttää tätä teosta tai suojan kohdetta samassa laajuudessa kuin ennen lain voimaantulo. My question is where you are basing your assumption that there is difference between the date when the public document was initially published and the date when reusers copied it? (and if possible back your words with citation. I am starting to be stricter with refs because without external backing to our words we are just bullshitting which is waste of time ) --Zache (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same quote as above which only says that one can continue using the work after the law has changed. Quite naturally, if one didn't copy the work before the law was changed, then there is no use which could continue after the law changes. As for publishing, see COM:PUB. Though, it doesn't seem to have much of relevance here, as your source isn't about publishing.

I agree we should follow the sources more strictly and if we claim that any file here on Commons isn't copyrighted, then it should be clear on what basis we do so. And we should avoid misusing the sources by vague or arbitrary interpretations. 90.191.109.9 11:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide more information

Not really sure I fully understand the issue. The website hosting the photographs states the photographs may be used by anyone. The only stipulation they require is that the photo source be identified as "SA-kuva", which was included in the description for the photograph I added.
If the issue is that it shouldn't be tagged as "PD-FinlandGov," please recommend the proper tag rather than outright deletion. However, the website also states those images originated from the Finnish Wartime Photograph Archive. Also, on each page, it references The Finnish Defence Forces. Clearly they are stated as being government products in the public domain, and that statement was issued by a public authority or other public body in Finland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMJKWhite (talk • contribs)

PD-Finland50 is always an option for these images. --Jonund (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have changed File:D-8 Armored Car.jpg to that, as the photo was over 75 years old. I am still curious about Finnish government photographs that are not over 50 years old. Most of the above list are photographs take by a government employee for use in documents that do fall under the PD-FinlandGov license. In the U.S., government owned photographs such as these are public domain. Is it different for Finland?--KMJKWhite (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That depends from country to country. It is important what the court rules. Sometimes there is written something in the law but the courts are ruling it more strict because of another paragraph in the same law or in a different law. In Germany we have comments on copyright which are pretty detailed but Germany is also a pretty large country in contrast to Finland.--Sanandros (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures from SA-kuva archive are checked by them for the free use and they can be used in Wikimedia Commons. If there is something in the list which are from SA-archive for the deletion then it is in wrong place. --Zache (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the images here are from documents qualifying under Article 9 and are properly used. The issue has been discussed earlier in Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Rajavartijoita_passintarkastuksessa.jpg. --MPorciusCato (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is vague. Per clarifications above it's possible that some photographs can be covered by this license tag, but I doubt that all of them are integral parts of documents and as such properly used here. E.g. "Rajavartijoita_passintarkastuksessa.jpg" which you refer, is purely illustrative in this annual report, its not cited nor has it even any direct relation to textual part. Another example, images like "Level crossing accident in Nivala.jpeg" could be used as an integral part of the accident report, and yet, though numbered, it's not cited in the report either. So we probably can't say that copying these documents without these photographs would defeat the purpose of allowing dissemination of authority statements. I think this needs to be brought out clearly for specific photos if any of the photos listed above really is an integral part of a document covered under article 9. It still seems unlikely for most of the photographs that they are covered. As for drawings and maps named in clarification above it's probably more likely that they are covered. Drawings and maps tagged as PD-FinlandGov aren't nominated at the moment, but we should probably look into actual copyright status of these too more thoroughly. 90.191.109.9 08:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image of border guards is used by the Ministry of Interior to illustrate the message they want to send. Similarly, the photo on the accident investigation report is obviously mentioned to illustrate the written word. Both photos are "appended" in the sense of the parliamentary committee memorandum mentioned above. The parliamentary committee discussed drawings and maps but this is because of the copyright law of 1992 did not extend copyright protection to most photos at all. In addition, it was extremely uncommon for authority statements to include photos because of technical limitations.

When using the term "integral" one needs to think like a bureaucrat. Traditionally, a public statement would be archived in a folder with all documents pertaining to the matter. The discussion here means that the document composed by the authority would be outside the copyright, but the mere fact of private documents being archived with it would not release the private statements and their appendices from the copyright protection. However, should the authority decide to use any part of a private work in its own statement, it would be freed. The fact whether the use by the authority is integral to the understanding of the document is immaterial. What matters is that the authority has wanted to use those illustrations as part of the message it wants to send. --MPorciusCato (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are now overinterpreting the matter. The committe clarification above is specifically about parts appended or cited. Parts appended are probably specifically parts added as appendices at the end of the document (and usually cited as such). Otherwise in the broader sense we would consider that anything included in the document is "appended" to it. This would make the subsection 2 of article 9 in copyright act pointless if "independent works contained in the documents" don't really exist. 90.191.109.9 13:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this pointlessness was noted by the Consritutional Committee of the Parliament which notes in its statement on the Copyright Act amendments of 2005 [6]: Lakeihin ja säännöksessä tarkoitettuihin muihin asiakirjoihin ei nimittäin yleensä sisälly itsenäisiä teoksia. Jos taas asiakirjan sinänsä julkista osaa saa käyttää vapaasti vain asiakirjasta pääteltävään tarkoitukseen, voi tekijänoikeuden ulottaminen asiakirjojen osiin joissakin tilanteissa muodostua kohtuuttomaksi rajoitukseksi julkiselle keskustelulle, vapaalle tiedonvälitykselle ja vallankäytön julkiselle kritiikille. This translates as "Laws and other documents meamt in the rule don't usually contain independent works. If, on the other hand, a part of a document, in itself public, would be freely usable only for the purpose that can be determined from the document, the copyright protection of parts of documents might in some cases become an unreasonable restriction for public discussion, free dissemination of information and public criticism of public power." As the constitutional committee is the Finnish equivalent of a constitutional court, this statement carries a lot of weight. The whole purpose of the Article 9 is that you can disseminate authority statements. If we took your position, the authority statements mentioned here would not be freely publishable. You would need to weed them of any photos that might be independent works. Your approach to consider only "attachments" in the end of the documemnt as parts that might be covered by Article 9 is anachronistic. In the reporting style of the old, any images go to the end of the document for clear technical reasons. Nowadays, the documents have a richer layout and photos inlayed. The photos remain part of the authority statement, however. --MPorciusCato (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should not put too much weight on the word "appended". The word is liittää, which can also be translated as "paste" or "enclose" It does not carry, in the context of the Copyright Council decision above, the meaning of making a formal appendix or attachment. --MPorciusCato (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand this commitee statement (not a court decision) suggests that the law text should be renegotiated perhaps, but this hasn't been done yet. So far the actual text of the law also carries a lot of weight.

Authority statement or other document itself is essentially in written form and an attatchmetn becomes part if if it's appended or cited (relying on the committe comment on the 1992 amendment that you translated above). So the idea seems to be that disseminating authority statement is free even if some of the originally included photos are omitted and the statement itself is still "complete". Citing (also inlayed photos) or appending would mean that the statement says something like: "it is as shown on figure/appendix 5". So that we couldn't tell how "it" is without the figure/appendix and the statement itself could be considered incomplete. This isn't the case for neither of the nominated examples in my last comment. 90.191.109.9 16:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Before 1.1.2006. If the work is part of the official statement it was covered by the article 9 no matter if it was picture, text, map or whatever. Attachments wasn't considered as part of official statements unless they were integral part of the statement. Eg if they were comments of some organisation or like that. In 2006 there was change in law which extented the paragraph and appended the text The above does not apply to independent works contained in the documents referred to in paragraphs 1—5.. Before that it was blanket law which covered everything which was in the statement. (Least this is how i understand the thing) Tekijänoikeuskomitean VII (Komiteanmietintö 1992) was one of main documents which interpreted this before law change and based on Tekijänoikeusneuvosto statement at 2014 linked before it is still important one. One reason for the appended text was specifically that they wanted exclude works of art which was included in official statements from the article 9. However idea of the exclusion was not to exclude all of works but just works which was made for different reason than for the statement. This seems to be supported by Tekijänoikeusneuvosto which is official group who comments copyrights issues in Finland wrote that even if the included work is work of art it will be covered by articla 9 in to some extend. However how broad this covering is something we can only find from tekijänoikeusneuvosto's statements if there is any and in the end court cases and it is pointless to discuss it here without the links to relevant cases. --Zache (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are, as far as I know, no court cases discussing the interpretation of Article 9 fro this point of view. In interpretational questions like this, parties usually submit the question to the governmental consultative body tekijänoikeusneuvosto. There is only a single supreme court case on this article and it is not applicable. In general, Finnish authorities are not apt to litigate on copyright issues which is shown by the fact that none of these files has been subject to authority take down notices.

In addition, I'd like to note that even if these files were not eligible for PD-FinlandGov tag, many of these files would be used by most wikiprojects in such way that they would qualify for the extended fair use under article 25d.4 as the images are used for the purpose for which the original document pertains. So, any commons-deletion should be preceded by a grace period during which the files xould be backed up by interested projects. --MPorciusCato (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitutional Committee did not "suggest" a reformatting of the Copyright Act in the future. The committee required cjhanges to the law so that it could be approved in the regular order (as opposed to constitutional amendment). The Committee of Education decided to implement the requirement by the current formulation. Thus, when we interpret the law, we need to assume that the wording is supposed to fulfil the interpretation of the Constitutional Committee. Thus, "independent works" should be taken to mean works that are really independent (e.g. paintings, poems or novels) of the document. No other interpretation is in line with the statements of the Copyright Council and the Constitutional Committee. --MPorciusCato (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see how you draw a conclusion that "really independent" works are only works such as paintings, poems or novels. Quotes above don't tell anything near to that. 90.191.109.9 07:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Individual files being contested

As an aside, I suggest a separate Keep for File:Tiedote_tehokloorauksesta_Nokialla 2008.jpg. The photo is my own work. The PD-FinlandGov there refers to the pictured official statement being displayed. I don't think that anyone here is claiming that the PD-FinlandGov would not apply to that paper. However, it shows that the deletion nominator has done her work badly and is nominating files indiscriminately. --MPorciusCato (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not indiscriminately, but indeed I didn't notice that for this specific case the tag goes for the leaflet depicted on the photograph and not the photograph itself. Withdrawing my nomination for this photograph. 90.191.109.9 13:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another unclear example: File:Conscript duty NCO wearing a gorget.jpg. The photo is from the General Regulations of the FDF. The photo is clearly located under the chapter discussing the duties of the Duty NCO. The purpose of the photo is clearly to give an illustration of an ideal Duty NCO, and as such, it is part of the document. The photo would not even qualify as a "work" if considered independently according to the Finnish copyright law, and in its location it is about as far from an "independent work" as possible. Instead, it is a clear example of a work subordinated to the greater work. Do you, 90.191.109.9, claim really that this file should be deleted? --MPorciusCato (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The regulation doesn't seem to cite this photo as "an illustration of an ideal Duty NCO" or as an illustration for any other specific purpose which would make it an integral part of the regulation. As I understand, if a photo isn't a work of art per Finnish copyright law, it's still copyrighted, though for fewer years. What do you mean by "as far from an independent work as possible"? If an independent work can be included in a document or other work (as the law text says) then sure it can be subordinated to the greater work as well. Say, common book illustrations are still independent copyrighted works even if included in the book. 90.191.109.9 16:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed close I found only a very few files with problems. The rest of these seem to be covered under the Finland tag. I would not oppose individual re-nominations of any additionally disputed image of this large group; large batches of variable situation images are not usually easy to close. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Photos tagged as PD-FinlandGov

Photos tagged as PD-FinlandGov

Navigation menu

Search