dake wrote: > The question about armoiries raised up in the "bistro", section > "poulpisme" > (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/31_mars_2006) > I actually gave references to 232.21 > > On Commons, these pictures are marked as "CC-BY-SA-2.0". I am wondering > if this license conflicts with law 232.21
It does not. The CC licences (and the criteria for inclusion in commons in general) are concerned only with the copyright of the images, and these images are likely to be in the public domain (except for rare exceptions, as I wrote earlier). The law 232.21 is unrelated; in any case, it does not restrict copy or modifications of the images. Here is a similar example. By law, all bank notes are in the public domain in Switzerland, so one is allowed to make copies of them. However, it does not mean that one is allowed to copy them in order to make counterfeit money ! Another example is the combination of trademark and copyright law: a company's logo may well be in the public domain from the copyright point of view, meaning that one is allowed to copy it, but it may still be protected as a trademark, meaning that you can not use it as you wish. > You could probably enhance or integrate the following article : > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_of_photographs_in_Switzerland Thanks for the pointer; I missed its creation. It's an excellent start; it has been moved to en:Copyright law of Switzerland, and is being improved. > There are not *so* many questions about pictures in Switzerland (the > swiss community on :fr is still small, most questions came out of my > mind) but we can make a parallel with the questions that are often > raised for France. Those are usually : We could probably write a FAQ about these... > * photographies of recent monuments, buildings, architectural work, etc. No problem, as discussed earlier. > * copyright of agencies related to goverment No set rule, as discussed earlier. > * copyright and rules when one takes a picture of a known person (there > were some discussions about a picture of Zidane in an airport, one could > consider this as "private" life. > http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Zidane_Paris_CdG.png) No problem from the point of view of copyright. I don't know enough from the point of view of private life, but my guess would be that it is not a problem when this is done in a public place, as long as the photographer does not harass the person in order to take the photo. > * screenshots of softwares Probably not original enough to be copyrighted; the program itself is copyrighted, but the simple placement of widgets and windows on the screen probably isn't, except if there is something really special about it (like a photo displayed on the screen, etc). In any case, a screenshot can probably be considered as a citation for purpose of reference, and covered by art. 25 of the law. > * pictures of military buildings (eg for Switzerland : > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bunker-suisse-aviation-p1010146.jpg) No problem from the point of view of copyright. The photograph could still be prosecuted for violation of military secrets, but the bunker on the photo above is probably not a secret. There has been a few examples (including an appeal just last week) of silly cases where everyone knows that a certain building is a hidden military bunker, but mentioning it and publishing a picture accompanied by the location is considered a violation of military secret. > * pictures taken during major events (for Switzerland, a good example > could be pictures taken during Eurocup 08) No problem either — nobody owns the rights of what happens during a soccer match. > Last week, someone asked me by mail about this case : > > http://bpun.unine.ch/IconoNeuch/Portraits/Portraits.htm > > The pictures should be in public domain, but a copyright has been added > by the Bpun. I asked the SSA about this issue (for me, this content > should be marked as PD) and they were surprised, they have forwarded my > question to another society (Pro Litteris), I am waiting for a clear answer. > > ---- > Nous avons bien reçu votre courriel et nous nous sommes en effet > interrogés sur le © que la Bibliothèque a inséré sur l’oeuvre non > protégée. Il couvre éventuellement les droits du photographe qui a > reproduit l’oeuvre afin qu’elle soit numérisée.Mais nous avons constaté > en général que les bibliothèques souhaitent être indiquées en tant que > source, et que, si elles facturent quelque chose aux utilisateurs, ce > sont leurs frais de recherche. > ---- > > Voilà ;) C'est du pipeau, a mon avis ! Just digitalising an image does not produce an "original" work (quite the opposite: when you digitalise an image, your goal is to be as close as possible to the original one), so this is unlikely to be protected by copyright. See the "Meili" case referenced at the page you cited above (now en:Copyright law of Switzerland). Have you tried asking the Bpun ? As I wrote earlier, IANAL. Frederic _______________________________________________ Wikimediach-l mailing list Wikimediach-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
