Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Members of the Riksdag

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:Members of the Riksdag

[edit]

Press license that does not expressly permit derivative work and commercial use. A case very similar to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:SPDFraktion, for example. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 09:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- but please explain what it is you want to use the images for, that you think is not allowed? / Fred Chess 09:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I'd say expect good faith (or something like that) - if they say "Bilderna [...] är fria att använda (the pictures [...] are free to use) then we have to expect that it includes derivative use. No point in imagining worst case scenario. And wether you want to campaign for CC-only is irrelevant - then we'd probably have to delete ~70% of the database! --Lhademmor 12:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by Lhademmor. I don't see the point in the CC crusade. This project is based on the GFDL, not CC. Valentinian (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepPer above. Wouldn't it be better to discuss RTCs worries somewhere elese then on the 15 odd templates he has nominated for deletion during the last 48hours? /Lokal_Profil 15:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment what about writing to the Riksdag asking if they allow commercial use and derivative works? Kjetil r 16:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we get a clear statement that allows commercial use and derivative works. Commons:Licensing states that:
    • Republication and distribution must be allowed
    • Publication of derivative work must be allowed
    • Commercial use of the work must be allowed
  • "Bilderna är fria att använda" == "The images are free to use". We can not be sure if publication of derivative works and commercial use is allowed. Kjetil r 19:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now written to the Riksdag asking them to specify if they allow commercial use and derivative works. I'd say keep the template until we get a clear answer or a reasonable time has passed. /Lokal_Profil 11:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We will of course keep the template for a reasonable amount of time, waiting for a reply. Kjetil r 11:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lokal-Profil and Kjetil if you know how the law works for these things, you'll know that sv:PUL prohibits unrestricted commercial use, and that's not something the Riksdag can change. The derivative work thing is also an illusion, since the only possible derivative use of the image would be to distort it (if you can be specific about a different kind of derivative work, please be; Rtc displayed his inability to be so earlier), and such distortions are also prohibited by the Swedish law as it would either violate the moral right or be defamatory. So even if the images are as free as they can get, the Riksdag will probably tell you that their commercial and derivative use are restricted. Again, I'm not sure what commercial use is intended here (newspaper, T-shirt, advert for Coca-Cola?), and if you can formulate something more specific than Rtc is able to, I'm sure it would be easier to confirm the commercial possibilities... because we can be quite sure that the Riksdag doesn't allow the use of an image for a purpose where it puts the subject in a defamatory situation, or in a way that may appear that the person supports or endorses a brand or company -- not primarily because of copyright restrictions but because the law prohibits it (public domain as it is known in the U.S. doesn't exist in the same way in the EU). Of course, I am not a lawyer, and I might be wrong on the details. / Fred Chess 14:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cropping and changing the color balance are two examples of a legitimate need for permission to make and redistribute derivative works. Kjetil r 14:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Kjetil. / Fred Chess 14:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An example of commersial use which is not defamatory but would need a commercial license would be the equivalent of en:baseball cards but with swedish politicians instead (I know not very likely). I assumed that protection against defamatory use always applied. Anyhow you are probably right that even if riksdagen agrees they will probably want these restrictions (which are compatible with Commons licensing) to be pointed out in the template. Anyhow I'll wait for a reply from their PR department. /Lokal_Profil 14:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial use and defamatory use of depicated persons must be permitted copyright-wise, such that I am not sued twice (once for violation of coypright and once for violation of personality rights) when I am using the picture defamatorily. You are right that most modification is prohibited by personality rights anyway, but that is not a reason to accept double-restriction by copyright law. A valid and personality-rights-wise legal use for derivative work would be the creation of caricature. (Cropping and changing the color balance are really already permitted for a press license.) A controversial commercial use would be to print posters and postcards with the photo and selling them, or to use the picture as the title of one of the major periodicals. The photographer certainly wouldn't like not to see no money for such use. --Rtc 16:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion over the term "defamatory use" here. Firstly, caricatures would be considered (free speech protected) satire which, prima facie, would not be considered defamatory. The right to take legal action against actual defamation in the legal sense of the word can never be waived by a licence, no matter what your jurisdiction is, and such use is not permitted for CC- or GFDL-licensed or public domain works either.

Suggesting that a work isn't free if it can't be used to violate laws against defamation is as absurd as suggesting a work isn't free if you can't legally create a false advertisement or child pornography with the work as a backdrop. The responsibility for all such legal aspects of the work must reside with those who publish modified works.

Our only concern, then, is to ensure the legality of derivatives from a copyright law point of view. The licence in question here certainly permits commercial use (again, obviously not including false claims of endorsements or false advertising, or other illegal works which can never be permitted by licence). The only possible reservation one might have is that modifications may not be allowed. However, the choice of the word "användas" (used) rather than "spridas" (distributed) or "publiceras" (published) suggests a permission broad enough that the copyright holder would hardly have a legal leg to stand on in claiming that a reasonable interpretation should not include use in derivative works.

—LX (talk, contribs) 22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Copyright and personality rights are independent from each other. A copyright license waives the restrictions imposed upon by copyright; but you can well double-protect your personality rights by copyright restrictions on the picture by introducing as a copyright restriction that you loose the right to use as soon as you violate personality rights! In case someone uses the picuture defamatorily (and nowhere did I say that caricature is defaming, it was merely an example of derivative work that goes beyond cropping and changing color), he has to face court twice; once for violating personality rights and once for violating copyrights; and the damages he has to pay are even higher. A free license is supposed to protect users from this double punishment by not adding such double-protections by copyright. Generally, you think too much about "when is the use politically correct", which is hardly an issue about copyright, and you think not enough about "when does the original photographer have financial interests in the use of the picture or derivative works thereof, because it is not used anymore for the purpose for which the buyer paid." (And I have given as an example poster/postcard use and creating a caricature—this was meant concerning financial interests of the original photographer, not concerning personality rights!) Of course, "used" is an ambiguous term and it can mean anything; thus, clarification is badly needed. --Rtc 06:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification would of course be beneficial, but the notion that a statement that a work may be "used freely" needs clarification badly because its intent could somehow be interpreted as prohibiting certain uses so as to supplement personality rights seems far-fetched to say the least. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't far-fetched, but realistic. You must see the issues from the photographer's perspective, not from the perspective of getting good pictures for commons. --Rtc 08:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather look at it from a legal perspective, and from a legal perspective, it is far-fetched that "used freely" should mean that it may not be used freely. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Legally, "x" rather seldom means that x. --Rtc 12:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got a reply back from Riksdagen's informational uni saying
Håller med dig om att det är otydligt skrivet.
Vi kommer att uppdatera webbtexterna om bildrättigheter.

Bilderna på talmannen, ledamöterna och riksdagen är fria
att använda i sammanhang där riksdagen och riksdagens arbete
beskrivs. Bilderna får inte användas för kommersiellt bruk.
Reproduktion i reklam och marknadsföring är inte tillåten. 

Med vänlig hälsning
Catherine Svedelid
Informationsenheten
Sveriges riksdag
Which freely translated becomes: The text describing how the images may be used will be updated. The images are free for use in context mentioning the Riksdag and the work of the riksdag. The images may not be used commersially. Reproduction in advertisment and marketing is not allowed.
So I guess that's it /Lokal_Profil 11:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Experimentum crucis successful; conjecture corroborated. --Rtc 12:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on that. Given that the previous (irrevocable) statement did not exclude any particular uses in granting free use, we could probably continue to use the images safely, but since the licensing statement was not very clear and has now been changed to a more precise and less permitting one (which is different from, say, someone attempting to retract an unambiguous CC-licence), I think we ought to respect that. Of course, this also means deleting all images from the official Riksdag website. Look out for images tagged as {{Members of the Riksdag}} and other images in Category:Members of the Riksdag which are not from that website. (Neither the template name nor the category name make it clear that they exist for source and licensing purposes. I've personally put several images of members of the Riksdag from other sources in the category manually.) I guess we'll have to have a wikiträff with cameras at Riksdagshuset... —LX (talk, contribs) 13:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some links to free images which might help replace some of these images when orphaning:
—LX (talk, contribs) 17:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And some more:
Also note that Image:Swds2.jpg incorporates Image:Nyamko Sabuni.jpg. There are also a number of images from regeringen.se which are tagged as copyrighted free use, without the Members of the Riksdag tag, but which are probably covered by the same licensing terms. It should be pretty to find these if the riksdagen.se images are deleted first.
Again, even if the template and images tagged with it are deleted, please keep Category:Members of the Riksdag. In the now unlikely event that the images are kept, the template should categorise tagged images as Category:Images from riksdagen.se (or something to that effect), which should be a subcategory of Category:Image sources, to prevent overcategorisation of tagged images belonging in a more specific category and to separate subject categorisation from source categorisation.
—LX (talk, contribs) 19:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't that be done anyway independently of whether the template is kept or not? It would be an easy way of finding out which images are not effected and make substitutions easier. /Lokal_Profil 12:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Riksdagen has now updated the information on their webpage to clarify the situation. the wording is identical to that in the e-mail. /Lokal_Profil 12:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change template to match the new copyright restrictions of the Riksdag, similar to Template:Norden.org which says that the image were once free but are no more. Of course, our free derivatives are still free. The same goes for the Riksdag pictures - they're not free on riksdagen.se anymore, but they were earlier. Fortunately, we copied them all back then. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • These pictures have not changed their copyright status. There are no "new copyright restrictions." The mail was a clarification of the copyright status, not a change of it. Thus, the pictures are not compliant to COM:L and must hence be deleted. --Rtc 19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, reason: „Bilderna på talmannen, ledamöterna och riksdagen är fria att använda i sammanhang där riksdagen och riksdagens arbete beskrivs. Bilderna får inte anändas för kommersiellt bruk. Reproduktion i reklam och marknadsföring är inte tillåten.“ (Translation: „The text describing how the images may be used will be updated. The images are free for use in context mentioning the Riksdag and the work of the riksdag. The images may not be used commersially. Reproduction in advertisment and marketing is not allowed.“ That’s not compatible with our (and every other project’s) guidelines, see Commons:Licensing. Derivative work and commercial use must be allowed. I’ll replace some photos on sv.wikipedia.org before I start the deletion. Sorry guys, someone has to do it. --Polarlys 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Members_of_the_Riksdag&oldid=37214480"