On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Johan Jönsson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2016-04-04 19:44 GMT+02:00 Ryan Kaldari <[email protected]>: > > [Warning: This is a layman'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. > > Not necessarily – you're still free to post your vacation pictures on > Instagram or Facebook, for example, as I understand it. But for us > that's almost irrelevant: if you want to make information about public > spaces available to the public, you need to do so in a structured way > and they need to be able to easily find it. > The actual conclusion is pretty vague. It basically just says "The way Wikimedia is using these images fails the three-step rule of the EU Directive." It cites several different reasons: that the images are in an "open database", that there is significant commercial value in the database, that no compensation is provided to the authors, and that the right to exploit "new" technology in this way should remain with the authors. It seems unclear whether posting images on Facebook or Flickr would also fail these tests. Has anyone written a thorough legal analysis on the implications?
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
