Commons:Deletion requests/Templates contradicting EU directive

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

Templates contradicting EU directive

[edit]

As a sign that there is no aggression directed towards Italian friends (as has been claimed falsely) (and of course also not for russian friends) and that it is a general problem that needs to be resolved, I request the deletion of all templates contradicting the EU directive of 1993, which was mandatory to be implemented until 1995 ("Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 1 to 11 of this Directive before 1 July 1995", 13(1)). If you find any other templates, please feel free to add them here. The arguments have been given mainly on Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Italy and Template talk:PD-Italy and can be summarized as follows:

  • The EU directive has the intention to protect any photographs with 70 pma which are original, and they are "to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account"
  • High courts in Germany and Austria (where current law does not specify any demarcation criteria beyond "originality"), have refered to the implementation of the EU directive directly (decisions Austrian: [1][2][3] Germany: [4]), and have confirmed that the EU directive's 'originality'/'creativity' criterion, which merely cited the well-established berne convention definition and as established in all local laws, is to be taken as the full range of the berne convention (basically as soon as the photographer choose the position and pressed the button deliberately...), covering about any photograph that would be of interest to Commons. This is to be done notwithstanding any connotations from pre-directive law (where most countries took merit or purpose into account for photographic works) and notwithstanding their previous effects on the range of a "simple photograph", because it is the harmonizations intent to provide equal criteria and protection in all countries of the EU for photographic works based on the well-established berne convention definition, and permit limited "other/simple photographs/photographic images" protection only as soon as they are not protected by this uniform and broad "photographic work".
  • If implementation of the EU directive should not have been correct entirely in some countries (which is to be doubted), photographers in these countries have a strong position to sue for this to be done. Sooner or later, remaining dissenters among the countries (if there are any) will have to adjust their laws anyway.
  • The rule of the shorter term are factually not applicable within the EU, because EU citizens of country Y may not be discriminated in country X just because the laws of country Y are strange. So even if some country did not implement the EU directive correctly, the protection will be upheld in all EU countries which did so. For example, in Germany, there are special laws to ensure EU citizens enjoy the same copyright protection as Germans (UrhG 120), which overrides any rule of the shorter term. Please read the section Wikipedia:Public domain#The rule of the shorter term which gives a very good presentation of this.
  • It follows that the photos will be protected in the overwhelming majority of countries in Europe and are thus are not appropriate for commons.

Although the EU directive is unquestionably not law, we should take it as a binding commons policy that, because of this situation, any picture contradicting it cannot be accepted. Even if by some strange constellation some pictures may actually be PD, taking the EU directive for granted gives a safe legal base and will especially cease the sadly agressive discussions about law-twisting. Please keep in mind that in commons freedom of pictures comes first, and that their merit is only second here. Of course pictures should be decided on a case-by-case basis and judged if they can be used under the 70 pma rule etc. --Rtc 10:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another blatant rant from Rtc. If Germany gives extra protection to these PD images, just don't use them. In most of the world they are still PD as in their country of origin. As I said elsewhere, what if a small country makes a law extending copyright to 5.000 years after the author's death? Are we going to have a del *.* con Commons? --Jollyroger 14:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The situation you describe is different, and this is, I repeat again, not in any way a German problem. --Rtc 16:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although very interesting, German legal practices carry no weight in other jurisdictions. I shall limit my comments to the Danish material. Denmark implemented the ECOSOC directive by amending the law on copyrights on 22 December 2002 [5]. This law was amended again in 2005, and in June 2006 a new administrative order/proclamation (lovbekendtgørelse) was issued [6]. In all cases, the relevant clause stayed (§ 70, 2). Here is an English translation of the 2002/03 law from the webpage of the Danish Ministry of Culture which is responsible for this material: [7]. The official webpage of Copy-Dan (an NGO, the Joint Collecting Society for Danish copyright holders) [8] states as follows (section: "Fotografier"): (quote) The current law on copyrights makes a distinction in principle between photographic works (§ 1) and photographic images (§ 70). For photographic works the normal rule that the work is protected for 70 years following the creator's death applies, but photographic images are protected 50 years from creation. As a starting point, a specific evaluation [of each photograph in question] is necessary to determine whether the image is a photographic work or photographic image. Since no established legal practice exists in this field, drawing the line between photographic works and photographic images can be difficult. [9] (unquote).
Copy-dan further elaborates its own position by stating [10] (p. 5.) that it is difficult to draw the line but a rule of thumb '... if the image has the necessary independent / artistic merit. In practical terms it will often be taken into account if the person in question had taken a professional education as a photographer and / or if he had this occupation for a living ... They furthermore inform that "photographic images" (w/o creative merit) taken before 1970 are still PD since their copyright status were not restored by an amendment to the law in 1995. (p. 5).
However, it is also important to bear in mind that 1) Copy-dan cannot be described as a neutral body of advice, it is an NGO with a firm interest in interpreting the law as rigidly as possible, 2) The Danish legal system has adopted the ECOSOC directive but retained the 50-year clause and this was been confirmed in both 2005 and as late as June 2006. It seems hard to believe that this clause should have survived three legal/administrative reviews of the law if it held (next to) no content. Unless proven illegal by a judge or changed by Parliament, this clause retains legal force. 3) No law, governmental circular or legal proceding exists providing a precise definition of "artistic merit" leaving this area open to interpretation. To take an example; one lawyer [11] claims that e.g. "A photo of a church without signs of any special angle, light, preparation or similar" will fall into the 50-year category, effectively: it is not enough to simply press a button. This interpretation has been quoted on the Danish Wikipedia [12] and I could find no posts disputing it there. I see no reason to dispute that a 50-year clause does in fact exist, in particular since the administration must have gone through this law at least three times since 2001. This clause is open to interpretation but it will continue to hold legal force unless changed by Parliament or overruled by the Danish legal system. (And sorry, this became a pretty long post.) Valentinian (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several EU countries have changed their copyright laws after the directive (see Denmark above, Finland 13 times since 1995). I find it hard to believe that they are all making bad legislation - but easier to believe that EU directives can be quite open to interpretation. Furthermore - like Rtc him/herself pointed out - directives are not laws and they do not bind individuals and other body corporates and, AFAIK, the Europian Commision has not sued any country for failing to pass national legislation. -Samulili 22:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Samulili said that "Several EU countries have changed their copyright laws after the directive" That's correct—to implement this directive. They all have, which you can see by the other undisputed fact that "the Europian Commision has not sued any country for failing to pass national legislation". What is incorrect is that "EU directives can be quite open to interpretation" and it is also not the case that "they are all making bad legislation" However please see the fallacy you are all making. If your local law protects certain photographies as 50 or 20 pp you may not assume that all those photographies are ONLY protected by this. If something falls under the definition of these "simple photographies"="photographic images", but it also falls under the definition of "photographic works" (which is very broad), then it will be protected by 70 pma. Italian law for example, as has been found out under Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Italy/analisys#Faulty_assumptions goes as far as explicitly restricting its simple photograph definition to exclude anything that is not creative, and by consequence, that is a photographc work according to the implemented harmonized EU directive definition. Please see the following things:
  • Your local law "simple photo" exceptions apply only as soon as something is not at the same time already a photographic work as defined by the EU-directive and implemented in your local law.
  • Your "simple photos" definitions is thus not a demarcation criterion. It defines only what of the "other photographs"[13] is protected. You can see this nicely in German law which defines simple photography simply to be any photography (to be protected 50 pp), yet that of course does not mean (as would be implied by your logic) that the 70 pma rule never applies.
--Rtc 07:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that I was confused by the fact that you have grouped together these three different templates and now I don't quite see what is your main point. For example the PD-Denmark50 seems to be saying the exactly same thing as you write in your first point: that simple photos exception ("other photographs") apply only when an image is not a photographic work. The same is true at least for the latter part of PD-Sweden-photo.
Furthermor I disagree with your second point. Article 6 of the directive clearly divides between "photographs which are original in the sense that they are the author's own intellectual creation" and those that are not ie. other photographs ie. simple photographs. Many people have commented that you do not often see the difference between German laws and other laws. Swedish, Danish and Finnish laws do not define all photographs to be simple just as doesn't the directive. It seems to me that you are trying to force German legal definitions to be applied to any national law but it just doesn't work that way. -Samulili 09:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no difference in laws in what is a photographic work in the EU (and that's the important point). They all have been harmonized. They are all based on the international copyright definition, which is well-established in that a photo is creative if only a different photographer could in principle have done it differently (which are only a very few academic cases and mostly not photos of interest to commons), and these harmonized photographic works are protected 70 pma. German and Austrian courts have ruled that a) actually this harmonized definition applies, not any definition or connotations from pre-directive law versions; they do not carry over b) existing clauses for simple photographies may not be seen as including anything that is a photographic work under the harmonized definition, since that would erase the 70 pma protection. You almost understand my point, except that you are not seeing that "photographic works" are the same in all EU countries and that the "simple photograph" is only what is not a "photographic work" according to the EU and the international copyright definiton, even if the local law definitions suggest differently on first sight. --Rtc 10:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could interpret you in three ways and I will try to explain here how I'm reading you:
Interpretation 1: The countries in question define simple photographs/other photographs too loosely and that interpretation is agains the Berne convention (in spirit?) and against the letter of EU directive.
Interpretation 2: While the laws of the countries in question are fine, they are interpreted too loosely and the images, for which these templates are used, in most cases are not simple photographs/other photographs.
Interpretation 3: You are saying, that what is in one country deemed to be a photographic work must in all countries be deemed as a photographic work and not just an other photograph? If this is true, I see you why want to delete these templates. However, why would it be true? What part of the directive or what else mandates so?
Finally I'd like to add that I do see simple photographs are only those that aren't photographic works. Where we seem to differ is that in my opinion local law definitions say exactly the same thing. -Samulili 10:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Interpretation 2: While the laws of the countries in question are fine, they are interpreted by many commonsians and even some state officials, but not by any court so far too loosely incorrectly according to connotations of their pre-directive law and the images, for which these templates are used, in most cases except in some academic cases and possibly none of the existing pictures here are not simple photographs/other photographs.". "I do see simple photographs are only those that aren't photographic works" Fine, and "photographic works" is harmonized all around the EU, it is the same. So if some court in Germany or Austria, any other EU country or even a court in ANY country at all judging according to the international copyright definition of "photographic work" says that picture X is a "photographic work", that means that in principle it should be a photographic work and thus protected by 70 pma in any other EU country, too, because the definition of "photographic work" is the same in all EU countries and is the same as the international copyright definition, it is well-understood and well-established.--Rtc 10:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of "photographic work" is the same in all EU countries, but why is the strictest interpretation correct? Why not use the Danish interpretation? That is why I asked what part of the directive or what else mandates so? -Samulili 10:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "strictest" or "danish interpretation". There are some organizations and some people just as fallacious as many others. These opinions carry over from misunderstandings by connotations of pre-derective law versions and they are irrelevant, because they are NOT backed by courts. --Rtc 11:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I'll continue here on the left since some people have narrower monitors.)

Once again, let's first see where we agree:

  • We both agree that EU countries have a common definition of "simple photograph" and all EU countries agree on the general principals of the Berne Convention.

Then we seem to disagree with regard to interpretations of the definition.

  1. You have documented well the legally binding interpretations of courts of Germany and Austria (in so much as there are legally binding desicions in Civil law jurisdictions) - legally binding in Germany and Austria.
  2. Valentinian has equally well documented the interpretations from Denmark. For works in Denmark, why use the German interpretation? The law of Germany does not bind the actions (of Danish citizens) in Denmark. It could be, of course, that the Danish experts are wrong. But before such verdict I believe local experts.

Another important point where we agree is that the interpretation of simple photographs shouldn't be used loosely - even thought we disagree on where to draw the line - and that we should be alert with these templates. -Samulili 19:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EU countries do not have a common definition of "simple photographs" but of "photographic works": They must be original. One or two countries do not know "simple photographs" in the first place, they have as PD everything that is not a photographic work. Valentinian has, in contrast to me, only documented non-binding interpretations. Since the criteria are exactly the same in Germany and Denmark, and are to be read in light of exactly the same directive which they are both derived from, as far as I understand, Germany's highest appeals court and Danish experts are giving their opinion about one and the same thing, actually. Note that the cases are clear to say the demarcation criteria were much higher (Austria)/controversial (Germany) only before the directive came into effect. I think it is reasonable to assume that Danish experts have not received that something has changed witht he EU directive implementation and how it has changed: connotations of the past law. I'd really like to know the opinion of Danish experts about the German and Austrian rulings. Unfortunatley, I do not speak their language. But all these things are not important, since I hope we can agree that there is no rule of the shorter term within the EU, such that these photos are basically protected in any other country that recognizes the EU directive implementation in the same way as Germany and Austria. --Rtc 22:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the arguments of User:Valentinian. He says "Denmark implemented the ECOSOC directive by amending the law on copyrights on 22 December 2002" but we are NOT talking about the ECOSOC directive in the first place, we are talking about the "Council directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights", which "Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 1 to 11 of this Directive before 1 July 1995." Yes, "the relevant clause stayed", it stayed in German copyright, too, but it is being superseded by the implemented EU directive "photographic work" as a lex specialis (alternatively, it double-protects, which effectively gives the longer protection term, alternatively, law even explicitly restricts its simple photograph definition, as for italy) If copy-dan claims "that it is difficult to draw the line" and than goes on to state that it thinks that it is necessary that "the image has the necessary independent / artistic merit" to be protected as a photographic work, that is grossly negligent, because the EU directive gives clear guidelines contradicting this: "no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account", so if copy-dan bases its distinction on "independent / artistic merit" it is simply and plainly wrong.

  • Something which is a simple photograph is not automatically excluded from being a photographic work. Any claims of the opposite are faulty and based on the common fallacy. The claim that "The current law on copyrights makes a distinction" is wrong, because it does not make a distinction as is incorrectly believed, but because it specifies two entirely independent protections of which the photographic work takes precedence (because it is longer and/or more specific). The claim "no established legal practice exists in this field" is also incorrect, because the German and Austrian legal practice exists and because the EU directive is always implemented like in all countries, it can be reasonably assumed that the same is true in other EU countries. Further the EU directive simply refered to the berne convention definition which is well-established. There is no scope for interpretation.
  • Even if courts should fallaciously rule incorrectly on this issue (not seen any yet), contradicting the German, Austrian results, these will still be protected there and in other EU countries.
  • Please understand that there is a lot of confusion going on around the issue, and User:Valentinian has nicely shown how even officials and lawyers can be tricked into seeing these things in the wrong way. However, we must see the facts as presented by the German and Austrian court decisions about the broad range of the EU directive definition, and, by implementation, local law in all EU countries.
  • "the clause" (with 50 pp) you are refering to does not specify when something is in the public domain, but how long something is protected by this specific clause.. It is still protected independently and longer by the "photographic work" 70 pma rule.

Conclusion:

  • Something which is a "photographic image", but at the same time a "photographic work" (which is very broad) is protected 70 pma, independently from the photographic image protection not being lengthened.
  • Think in terms of "what is a photographic work and thus protected by 70 pma", do not think in terms of the fallacy "what is a photographic image and thus PD after 50 years".
  • copy-dan should be notified about its dangerous fallacies and directed to the German and Austrian court decisions.

--Rtc 07:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rtc, you are more and more acting like an European Court, notifying fallacies and assuming national laws are wrong. --Jollyroger 08:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not say that national laws are wrong. I say that you are misreading local laws and that you do not see that FIRST you must consider what is a photographic work and only the irrelevant "rest" can be considered as a simple photograph that may be PD 20pp. It is that simple. --Rtc 08:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(After edit conflict) Rtc, I was beginning to wonder if you were in fact referring to the ancient 1993 directive, but that was implemented in Denmark so long ago that I simply assumed that I had missed something in the 2001 directive and that you were referring to that one instead. The official legal database [14] doesn't show all legal developments back this far. Regarding your comments about Copy-Dan, I should like to point out a few things: 1) It is an NGO but they represent 40,000 professional copyright holders and Copy-Dan acts as their official spokesman, e.g. when negotiating with successive Danish governments. KODA has the same function regarding audio recordings and both are mentioned by name in Danish law. Any interpretation found on their webpages will ultimately come from their own lawyers but they work in close coorporation with the Ministry of Culture, so their ground is extremely well covered. I have no doubt to believe that these two organisations represent Denmark's leading copyright experts, and I find it extremely hard to believe that any professional organization representing 40,000 customers with established financial interests shouldn't have investigated its own basis thoroughly. However, I still consider them to be an interested party, for obvious reasons. 2) The "interpretation" you quote about the distinction between photographic images vs. photographic pictures reflects a distinction which does exist in a law currently in force. This will retain legal force unless changed by the processes I have already described.
All in all, I still believe that a governmental department employing professional legal experts working in tandem with the Ministry of Justice (which has extremly high credentials) knows what it is doing. Furthermore, although the three branches of government are legally separated from each other, it is extremely rare that the Supreme Court overrules a law, which would be necessary since Denmark has no Constitutional Court. I can only recall this happening in a single case within the last 10 years (the completely unrelated "Tvind Law") which was controversial from day one as several leading MPs argued that passing this law would violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court is traditionally very conservative in this respect. If you are really interested in Danish law, the relevant book must be Peter Schønning (2003): Ophavsretsloven med kommentarer, 3rd edition (The Copyright Law with comments) [15]. AFAIK he is the author of the Danish copyright law. However, I am no lawyer, and I don't own a copy myself. Valentinian (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can only say, great organizations make great mistakes. How about mailing them and Peter Schønning, directing them to the page here? I'd be interested in what they would say if being shown the German and Austrian court rulings. In any case you are incorrect to believe that it has anything to do with "it is extremely rare that the Supreme Court overrules a law". No law needs to be overruled, because as I said, "photographic works" was extended above what was previously merely a "simple photograph", with only few cases left that would be ONLY "simple photographs". Copyright is restricting. If it restricts a picture for 50 years and for 70 pma at the same time, in effect, it will be 70 pma. --Rtc 11:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is against my personal and political beliefs to be the instigator of disputes. I am always willing to discuss existing politicial problems but I will not create them. In this case, the interpretations of Copy-Dan and the Ministry are not completely identical, true, but they seem to differ in small detail but to share the same starting point. As long as the two main interested parties in a potential dispute remain so close to each other in agreement, I certainly have no ambitions changing that situation. In fact, I strongly suspect that both of them base their "interpretations" on communication with the same key employee who wrote the law and later wrote the 1000 page comment about it. The press quite happily reports whenever KODA or Copy-Dan voice a complaint and disputes over photographers' rights have not been reported in Danish media. Secondly, I will not put my name under your position since I) I don't believe you are correct in your position effectively claiming that everybody in Denmark have misunderstood the law. I have high respects for the Danish legal / administrative system and I expect them to be worth their salt, II) German verdicts have no implications in Denmark and legal traditions are very different. You automatically assume that "any judge" would rule the same way as the German judge. That is indeed possible, but it by no means a foregone conclusion. III) I have neither the interest nor the time to spend hours of my time examining details in your position, and I believe this would be necessary. I will not make any contacts to these people, for the reasons described above. If you wish to do so, that is entirely up to you. Valentinian (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would all not be a problem if my analysis a) would not be backed. it is strongly backed by several crystal clear court cases in two EU countries, all refering to uniform EU law set forth by a mandatory EU directive, b) would not have the consequence that these pictures are illegal here. Will everyone in Denmark still "remain so close to each other in agreement" as soon as the photographers discover the court rulings and see that basically all their pictures are protected 70 pma? --Rtc 17:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

templates accurate if User:rtc is correct

[edit]
Public domain This Swedish photograph is free to use either of these cases:
  • It is a "photographic work" (fotografiska verk) according to the uniform EU standard which enter the public domain 70 years after the author's death. The definition of photographic work was implemenented according to the 1993 EU directive on copyright and refers to the very broad and well-established Berne Convention definition, which deems a photo as creative if only a different photographer with the same skill could in principle have shot the photo in a different way; no other criteria such as merit or purpose (or artistic or scientific significance) being taken into account (which is given as soon as the photographer can vary the camera position freely and presses the button deliberately).
  • A photo which is not creative under this definition (mug shots, regular photos from passport photographing machines, cartographic air photos from prespecified camera position and angle, ie., if they would come out exactly the same, regardless of the photographer who does them) may still be protected as a photographic image (fotografiska bilder). the image is public domain if created before January 1, 1969, in accordance with transitional regulations 1994. The photographer, if known, should always be attributed. This is a very narrow class and hardly includes any picture of interest to commons.
Copyrighted
Warning sign 		This image is not in the public domain. Previous versions of this template were blatant nonsense, because "[t]he terms of protection provided for in [the 1993 EU Directive on copyright] shall apply to all works and subject matter which are protected in at least one Member State, on 1 July 1995, pursuant to national provisions on copyright or related rights or which meet the criteria for protection under Directive 92/100/EEC."[16] The work is thus protected in about any European country and any country respecting international copyright law, because almost none of them ever reqired copyright notices.
Public domain This image was created and is now in the public domain in Danish, because its term of copyright has expired. Photographic works according to the uniform EU standard enter the public domain 70 years after their author's death. The definition of photographic works was implemenented according to the 1993 EU directive on copyright and refers to the very broad and well-established Berne Convention definition, which deems a photo as creative if only a different photographer with the same skill could in principle have shot the photo in a different way; no other criteria such as merit or purpose (such as artistic merit or artistic originality) being taken into account (which is given as soon as the photographer can vary the camera position freely and presses the button deliberately). A photo which is not creative under this definition (mug shots, regular photos from passport photographing machines, cartographic air photos from prespecified camera position and angle, ie., if they would come out exactly the same, regardless of the photographer who does them) may still be protected as 'photographic images' according to the Consolidated Act on Copyright of 2003 (§70, 2), and enters the public domain 50 years after they were created. This is a very narrow class and hardly includes any picture of interest to commons.

--Rtc 14:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see: "honesty" = your own position. You are of course aware that this choice of words effectively labels myself and all others "daring" to disagree with you as either dishonest or even criminals? I find both associations quite offensive. I also noticed this edit the other day: [17] (bottom). If this is your attitude to other contibutors, I don't believe it will serve any purpose to contribute further to this debate. Btw, this page is not listed correctly on COM:DEL. It should be listed like all other deletion requests. Valentinian (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that you are dishonest, I am saying that the template is dishonest, from my point of view. I changed the heading if you need them to be more neutral (but this is not wikipedia). My comments you are citing may seem harsh, but they are not directed personally at anybody or are supposed to claim anybody to be dishonest or deliberately engaging in illegal acts, but they are meant cynically. --Rtc 17:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have no problem with the current headline. Valentinian (talk) 10:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it seems that it's a mattero of opinion; many of us thinks that the EU directive cannot override the national law; you think that it can. But you, nor me, are experts of EU legislation; we are not even lawyers (please correct me if I'm wrong); so I propose to wait a bit and don't delete anything until we can find a real expert of the matter. user:paulatz 09:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are cases where the national laws have been overridden to protect the rights guaranteed by EU directives. Where I disagree with Rtc is that in my opinion these national laws are not against the directive. -Samulili 10:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could explain me why the EU directive should be more important than a directive taken in (just an exaple) Turkey? If we follow this method every PD picture should be deleted: not in everywhere the PD pictures are legal, not in everywhere the PD has the same rules. So I think whe should follow the PD rules of the various nations... don't we? Should we prefer the EU rules? Why? Just my 2 cents. Thanks. --Lucas 03:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because we're talking about pictures published in an EU country. -Samulili 07:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense? The swedish/italian... law says something precise, and, as far as I can understand, it's not against the EU directive. But, anyway, I think this is not the point: why the EU directive should be "better" than the Swedish one (or italian, switzerland, ecc.)? I think Wikipedia is not the right one that must give an answer to this question, the International Law instead... --Lucas 11:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sweden doesn't have directives, it has laws. When Sweden joined EU, it agreed that when the EU passes a directive, Sweden will embed its content to the Swedish law. It's not a question of "betterness". -Samulili 12:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but is the swedish law changed? And what about Italy? --Lucas 12:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC) (about the adjective "better" and the other words, please apologize my bad english ;-))[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Templates_contradicting_EU_directive&oldid=157096405"