Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?

2013-03-04 Thread Jane Darnell
Hi Fae, Thanks for your thoughts. I think the problem is one of definition of terms. I checked out the links you listed and they are all interesting, but I don't believe any of them are applicable to the case of war monuments and memorials. I think war monuments and memorials are by definition inte

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?

2013-03-03 Thread Fae
On 3 March 2013 12:10, Jane Darnell wrote: ... > In that discussion, the whole category for the Washington, DC Vietnam > memorial was nominated for deletion, see here: > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Vietnam_Veterans_Memorial > The last word on that discussion wa

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?

2013-03-03 Thread Jane Darnell
After discussing this issue with the daughter of a Dutch WWII veteran (yes, she's old!) I have come to the conclusion that the logic for handling photos of artwork on Dutch WWII memorials should follow the same rationale as this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?

2013-03-03 Thread Lodewijk
However, the location of the servers wasn't the topic of the original discussion :) So jumping back to that: Is there already a clear outcome on the Commons community regarding the possible deletion of images that are legal in the country of origin but might not be permitted under US copyright law?

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?

2013-03-03 Thread Fae
On 3 March 2013 06:50, James Alexander wrote: > On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Tobias Oelgarte < > tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> The problem are not the European laws. It are the US laws that don't >> recognize the European FOP. That means it would be perfectly legal to host >> such

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?

2013-03-02 Thread James Alexander
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Tobias Oelgarte < tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > The problem are not the European laws. It are the US laws that don't > recognize the European FOP. That means it would be perfectly legal to host > such images on an European server (in a country that recogn

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?

2013-03-02 Thread Tobias Oelgarte
The problem are not the European laws. It are the US laws that don't recognize the European FOP. That means it would be perfectly legal to host such images on an European server (in a country that recognizes FOP), but not on US servers, because they are subject to US law. Am 02.03.2013 12:34,

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?

2013-03-02 Thread David Gerard
-- Forwarded message -- From: Jane Darnell Date: 2 March 2013 10:59 Subject: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art? To: common...@lists.wikimedia.org Hello, Apologies for cross-posting, but WMNL was recently approached for helping start a photo cont