Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-NL-Gov/en

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.

Template:PD-NL-Gov/en

NB this DR covers {{PD-NL-Gov}}, not just the English version... {{PD-NL-Gov}} redirects to {{PD-NL-Gov/en}}.

The law referred to does not make government works public domain. Article 15b says

The further communication to the public or reproduction of a literary, scientific or artistic work communicated to the public by or on behalf of the public authorities shall not be deemed an infringement of the copyright in such a work, unless the copyright has been explicitly reserved, either in a general manner by law, decree or ordinance, or in a specific case by a notice on the work itself or at the communication to the public. Even if no such reservation has been made, the author shall retain the exclusive right to have appear in the form of a collection his works which have been communicated to the public by or on behalf of the public authorities.

As User:Avenue said at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Category:Mohammed_Bouyeri_and_PD-NL-Gov, Reproduction and distribution are allowed, yes, but not the creation of derivative works. So this is essentially a "no derivatives" permission, which is much more restrictive than PD, and would not usually be sufficient for the work to be hosted on Commons. Rd232 (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless otherwise stated, Dutch government works on their www.government.nl website are currently made available under the Creative Commons zero declaration (CC0) 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication (see http://www.government.nl/copyright). CC0 might be less restrictive than PD-NL-Gov--Francis Flinch (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Good, so we can transition at least some of the files to CC-0. Some other NL gov sites also use CC-0, eg defensie.nl (for File:Hr. Ms. De Ruyter (1936) 1.jpg). Maybe a custom CC license tag would be worth making. Rd232 (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Derivatives would seem allowed per article 13, no? -- Asclepias (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That article is defining "reproduction" to include modifications which don't give rise to new copyright. I don't see how that helps us. Rd232 (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

No, article 10(2) says that reproductions (including translations etc as listed in article 13) are separately protected by copyright. So together with article 13, that would seem to indicate that reproductions include some modifications that give rise to new copyright - just not adaptations that can be regarded as "a new, original work."

I admit I missed article 13, and it does seem that my conclusion quoted above was too strong. Articles 13 and 15b together would seem to allow a fairly wide range of derivative works of government-released material. However, more original derivatives might not be allowed, which may present problems for free use.

Even leaving that issue aside, article 15b says that the author retains an exclusive right over a collection of his government-released works, and that seems problematic for free use. The gallery of pages in w:Mohammed Bouyeri#Arrest could well infringe on that right, for instance. --Avenue (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hm, well maybe we can get some Dutch speakers here, that couldn't hurt with clarifying things. Rd232 (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. My first impression is that your interpretation would seem difficult to reconcile with the internal consistency of that article and with the other articles of the law. For the meaning of the article, it would mean that there could be some cases where a translation or a movie adaptation of a literary work would not be creative enough to give rise to a copyright. Such cases seem difficult to imagine. For the relation with other articles, article 13 should be read together with the other articles where the notion of reproduction comes into play. For example article 1, which says "Copyright is the exclusive right of the author of a literary, scientific or artistic work or his successors in title to communicate that work to the public and to reproduce it, subject to the limitations laid down by law." To explain better, let me try a proposition ad absurdum. Let us make the hypothesis that your interpretation is correct and that derivative works with some sufficient original content are not included in the definition of reproduction. Then those derivative works are not covered by article 1 as encumbered by the copyright of the author of the original work. Then, as long as the derivative works add some (sufficient) creative element, anyone can freely make such derivative works without the authorization of the author of the original work. Then, all derivative works of works communicated by the government are always allowed, because (sufficiently) original derivative works are not forbidden by article 1 whereas unoriginal derivative works are forbidden by article 1 but are specially allowed by article 15b. Instead, my impression is that the idea of article 13 is more or less the equivalent of saying that for the purposes of the law the definition of "reproduction" includes the making of derivative works, which is to be understood as including translations, movie adaptations, and any other work that is based on and retains something of the original work. However, the wording of this template is flawed anyway, for the other reasons that have been mentioned (and had been noted in past deletion requests) and it should probably be deleted. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

On reflection, my concern about some derivative works not being covered is probably misplaced. Since article 1 doesn't say derivative works are protected by copyright (except in so far as they qualify as reproductions), any derivative works that were not "reproductions" would not be encumbered by the copyright in the pre-existing work. My concern about collections still stands, though.

This is probably moot, but FWIW, I think your ad absurdum argument has a flaw. You state my hypothesis correctly, that derivative works with sufficient original content are not included in the definition of reproduction. Then the rest of your argument jumps to talking about "derivative works that add some creative element" (my emphasis), and tries to show it would be silly for all of them to be excluded from the definition. But there seems a big difference between having some creative element and having sufficient originality to "be regarded as a new, original work" (in the language of Article 13). --Avenue (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to convince me that that template is wrong and that there is a concern about collections. I have been pointing that out for years. See for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joran van der Sloot Aruba mugshot.jpg, and User:Asclepias/Sandbox#Category:Euro coins (The Netherlands). Above, I was only specifying why the "derivatives" question had not been, and still is not, my angle of criticism of the template, because I think that it is a red herring.

About the wording of the ad absurdum argument, the first line of the argument already poses that it is about "derivative works with some sufficient original content". As the following sentences unfold directly from the basis of that premise and about those same derivatives, I didn't think necessary to re-specify the same whole phrase each time. But in case that was not explicit enough, I added the words "sufficient" and "sufficiently" in parenthesis. By the way, as the indentation indicates, the interpretation I was commenting was Rd232's, which was "article [13] is defining "reproduction" to include modifications which don't give rise to new copyright." -- Asclepias (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake about the indentation. Yes, I agree my concern about the derivatives issue was a red herring. Thanks for the links. --Avenue (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Delete as inaccurate. There's no point in correcting the template to acknowledge the restriction on collections, because then it wouldn't demonstrate that the images are free. The files should be reviewed to see whether the CC-0 dedication mentioned above applies, however. --Avenue (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Let's start doing that then. An explicit PD release is better anyway. Rd232 (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Per the discussion above. Just to make clear that we all agree, for the benefit of the closing sysop. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

@Fastily: What about s:Copyright Act (Netherlands)#Article 11, "judicial or administrative decisions" are not, I presume, "literary, scientific or artistic work"? Habitator terrae 🌍 12:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)