I'm wondering what Anna Troberg meant when she said to The Local: "It also runs counter to recommendations from the European Court of Human Rights." [ http://www.thelocal.se/20160404/wikimedia-breaks-copyright-laws-with-pics-of-public-art] Which recommendations exactly? Citation very much needed.
Raul On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:06 PM, John Andersson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > There is a distinction in Swedish law around taking the photo for your own > use - and transferring the photo to other people. Taking (digital) photos > are still okay, and it is explicitly stated in the law that it is okay to > transfer the photo in the analog sense (i.e. put the image in a book or on > a postcard and sell it for profit is perfectly fine). > > But what we were sued for was our work with Offentligkonst.se > <http://offentligkonst.se/#5/62.964/17.600>, where we are using *digital* > means to transfer these images to other people. We, and our legal councils, > thought that the court would interpret the law technology neutral (i.e. if > a printing press is okay to use as a tool, then a computer would). We were > wrong... > > Best, > > John > - - - - > *John Andersson* > Wikimedia Sverige > Project Manager > > Phone: +46(0)73-3965189 > Email: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Skype: johnandersson86 > > > > > From: [email protected] > > Subject: Publicpolicy Digest, Vol 46, Issue 2 > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 17:44:34 +0000 > > > > Send Publicpolicy mailing list submissions to > > [email protected] > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > [email protected] > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > [email protected] > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Publicpolicy digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Is the Swedish Twist unique? (Ryan Kaldari) > > 2. Re: Is the Swedish Twist unique? (Ryan Kaldari) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 11:44:03 -0600 > > From: Ryan Kaldari <[email protected]> > > To: Publicpolicy Group for Wikimedia > > <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Publicpolicy] Is the Swedish Twist unique? > > Message-ID: > > <CACT3B=VicsSHNPKnPp2iB8eyqRUTkxOi+M0xKALG8Vncc=k...@mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > [Warning: This is a lawman's analysis. I'm not a lawyer.] > > > > Wow, this is a pretty incredible decision. It seems the Swedish Supreme > > Court has gutted the country's Freedom of Panorama law (for all works > > including buildings) by simply declaring that the the law's statement > > that "Works > > of art may be reproduced..." ("Konstverk får avbildas...") doesn't apply > to > > the internet. They seem to have bent over backwards to reach this > > conclusion, citing the European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29 > / > > EC of 22 May 2001 (which they say "imposes a strong protection of > > copyright, especially in the digital environment") and even the fact that > > other Nordic countries don't have Freedom of Panorama (they do, it's just > > restricted to buildings). Their basic conclusion is that the law must be > > interpreted as conservatively as possible because otherwise it would > > "unreasonably prejudice" the author's financial interests (without > > acknowledging at all the public's interest). They awkwardly explain that > > postcards don't constitute a significant impact on commercial > exploitation, > > but when it comes to new technology like the internet, the law must be > > assumed to not apply (despite what a reasonable person would assume from > > the law's text). This is very disappointing indeed. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Raul Veede <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > Most likely the Swedes can explain the exact nuances better, but from > the > > > little I have gathered, it seems that Swedish Supreme Court today > decided > > > that although there is Freedom of Panorama in Sweden, it cannot be > extended > > > to publishing the images of public art on the Internet. > > > > > > Now, the exact reasoning, all the consequences and WMSE's further > actions > > > notwithstanding, my question is whether this makes Sweden the only > country > > > in the world where such a distinction is established? If yes, this is a > > > very dangerous precedent. If not, I would very much want to know the > > > peculiarities in the other cases. > > > > > > In either case, we should be prepared to counter suggestions to adapt > that > > > distinction to the other countries in Europe. > > > > > > Some links: > > > * WMSE's press release: > > > > http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/pressreleases/hoegsta-domstolen-vaeljer-att-krympa-det-offentliga-rummet-istaellet-foer-att-gaa-paa-wikimedia-sveriges-linje-1360834 > > > * The same in Google Translate: > > > > https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mynewsdesk.com%2Fse%2Fpressreleases%2Fhoegsta-domstolen-vaeljer-att-krympa-det-offentliga-rummet-istaellet-foer-att-gaa-paa-wikimedia-sveriges-linje-1360834&edit-text= > > > * Supreme Court's decision in Google Translate: > > > > https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgoranden/2016/2016-04-04%2520%25C3%2596%2520849-15%2520Beslut.pdf&usg=ALkJrhhlSJXySoC2n5KkvshhCcIsShp6iQ > > > * Swedish Copyright Act in English (on Unesco's homepage): > > > > http://portal.unesco.org/culture/admin/file_download.php/se_copyright_2005_en.pdf?URL_ID=30264&filename=11418280643se_copyright_2005_en.pdf&filetype=application%2Fpdf&filesize=174806&name=se_copyright_2005_en.pdf&location=user-S/ > > > > > > Some coverage in Swedish: > > > http://feber.se/webb/art/346833/offentligkonstse_bryter_mot_up/ > > > > http://www.svt.se/kultur/konst/brottsligt-sprida-bilder-av-offentligt-konst-pa-natet > > > > http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/lag-och-ratt/hd-dom-olagligt-att-publicera-bilder.htm > > > http://www.friatider.se/wikipedia-f-r-inte-visa-bilder-p-konstverk > > > > http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/konst-form/hd-brottsligt-att-sprida-bilder-av-offentlig-konst-pa-natet/ > > > > > > > http://www.kamerabild.se/nyheter/foto/hd-beslut-olagligt-att-avbilda-konst-f-r-spridning-p-n-tet > > > > > > One particular piece of news in translation, demonstrating the > > > journalist's depth of comprehension, starting with the headline > "Copyright > > > of outdoor art also applies online": > > > > > > > https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsverigesradio.se%2Fsida%2Fartikel.aspx%3Fprogramid%3D478%26artikel%3D6403634&edit-text= > > > > > > Enjoy. > > > > > > Raul > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Publicpolicy mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/publicpolicy/attachments/20160404/3fe8e7f9/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 11:44:29 -0600 > > From: Ryan Kaldari <[email protected]> > > To: Publicpolicy Group for Wikimedia > > <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Publicpolicy] Is the Swedish Twist unique? > > Message-ID: > > <CACT3B=x_g0wptxciuofkhgurwjhqw80su3yuc0ydkderwoa...@mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > Oops, I meant "layman", not "lawman" :) > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > [Warning: This is a lawman's analysis. I'm not a lawyer.] > > > > > > Wow, this is a pretty incredible decision. It seems the Swedish Supreme > > > Court has gutted the country's Freedom of Panorama law (for all works > > > including buildings) by simply declaring that the the law's statement > that "Works > > > of art may be reproduced..." ("Konstverk får avbildas...") doesn't > apply > > > to the internet. They seem to have bent over backwards to reach this > > > conclusion, citing the European Parliament and Council Directive > 2001/29 / > > > EC of 22 May 2001 (which they say "imposes a strong protection of > > > copyright, especially in the digital environment") and even the fact > that > > > other Nordic countries don't have Freedom of Panorama (they do, it's > just > > > restricted to buildings). Their basic conclusion is that the law must > be > > > interpreted as conservatively as possible because otherwise it would > > > "unreasonably prejudice" the author's financial interests (without > > > acknowledging at all the public's interest). They awkwardly explain > that > > > postcards don't constitute a significant impact on commercial > exploitation, > > > but when it comes to new technology like the internet, the law must be > > > assumed to not apply (despite what a reasonable person would assume > from > > > the law's text). This is very disappointing indeed. > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Raul Veede <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi. > > >> > > >> Most likely the Swedes can explain the exact nuances better, but from > the > > >> little I have gathered, it seems that Swedish Supreme Court today > decided > > >> that although there is Freedom of Panorama in Sweden, it cannot be > extended > > >> to publishing the images of public art on the Internet. > > >> > > >> Now, the exact reasoning, all the consequences and WMSE's further > actions > > >> notwithstanding, my question is whether this makes Sweden the only > country > > >> in the world where such a distinction is established? If yes, this is > a > > >> very dangerous precedent. If not, I would very much want to know the > > >> peculiarities in the other cases. > > >> > > >> In either case, we should be prepared to counter suggestions to adapt > > >> that distinction to the other countries in Europe. > > >> > > >> Some links: > > >> * WMSE's press release: > > >> > http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/pressreleases/hoegsta-domstolen-vaeljer-att-krympa-det-offentliga-rummet-istaellet-foer-att-gaa-paa-wikimedia-sveriges-linje-1360834 > > >> * The same in Google Translate: > > >> > https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mynewsdesk.com%2Fse%2Fpressreleases%2Fhoegsta-domstolen-vaeljer-att-krympa-det-offentliga-rummet-istaellet-foer-att-gaa-paa-wikimedia-sveriges-linje-1360834&edit-text= > > >> * Supreme Court's decision in Google Translate: > > >> > https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgoranden/2016/2016-04-04%2520%25C3%2596%2520849-15%2520Beslut.pdf&usg=ALkJrhhlSJXySoC2n5KkvshhCcIsShp6iQ > > >> * Swedish Copyright Act in English (on Unesco's homepage): > > >> > http://portal.unesco.org/culture/admin/file_download.php/se_copyright_2005_en.pdf?URL_ID=30264&filename=11418280643se_copyright_2005_en.pdf&filetype=application%2Fpdf&filesize=174806&name=se_copyright_2005_en.pdf&location=user-S/ > > >> > > >> Some coverage in Swedish: > > >> http://feber.se/webb/art/346833/offentligkonstse_bryter_mot_up/ > > >> > http://www.svt.se/kultur/konst/brottsligt-sprida-bilder-av-offentligt-konst-pa-natet > > >> > http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/lag-och-ratt/hd-dom-olagligt-att-publicera-bilder.htm > > >> http://www.friatider.se/wikipedia-f-r-inte-visa-bilder-p-konstverk > > >> > http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/konst-form/hd-brottsligt-att-sprida-bilder-av-offentlig-konst-pa-natet/ > > >> > > >> > http://www.kamerabild.se/nyheter/foto/hd-beslut-olagligt-att-avbilda-konst-f-r-spridning-p-n-tet > > >> > > >> One particular piece of news in translation, demonstrating the > > >> journalist's depth of comprehension, starting with the headline > "Copyright > > >> of outdoor art also applies online": > > >> > > >> > https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsverigesradio.se%2Fsida%2Fartikel.aspx%3Fprogramid%3D478%26artikel%3D6403634&edit-text= > > >> > > >> Enjoy. > > >> > > >> Raul > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Publicpolicy mailing list > > >> [email protected] > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > > >> > > >> > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/publicpolicy/attachments/20160404/8679c4a2/attachment.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Publicpolicy mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of Publicpolicy Digest, Vol 46, Issue 2 > > ******************************************* > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > >
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
