Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Sweden loses copyright suit

[Andreas Kolbe]

An English translation of the Swedish court decision is now available on
wikimediafoundation.org.[1]

As I understand the judgment, Offentligkonst.se, as a large-scale open
database, was found to unduly restrict the authors' opportunities for
commercial exploitation of their own works. And indeed, in this context it
doesn't matter whether the database itself is run for profit or not.

BUS's Erik Forslund explained[2] for example that municipalities pay BUS a
modest fee (again, in the range of a few hundred euros) to show images of
outdoor art online. A publicly available, open database removes that
market, all the more so if the images are also licensed for unlimited
commercial re-use – because commercial re-users are a key group that the
artists could otherwise derive income from.

Forslund expressed the hope[2] that BUS might be able to sign contracts
with Swedish search engine Hitta, Google and Facebook (as well as
Wikimedia). He also explicitly clarified that BUS had no interest
whatsoever in going after individuals posting selfies etc., and would
indeed consider it inappropriate. His organisation's interest is in getting
some compensation from the big internet players.

This frankly makes economic sense – quite apart from the morality of the
matter (someone posting online a selfie taken in a public place is clearly
not doing anything morally wrong), trying to get money from individual
posters online would cost far more money than the whole effort was worth.
It would be completely impracticable.

The postcard exemption exists for a similar reason, according to the court
judgment (section 15): negligible commercial value, and the sheer
impracticality of operating a payment scheme. Google, Facebook and
Wikimedia however are a different matter. The payments BUS hopes for are
roughly analogous to the payments Google makes to musicians whose music is
hosted on YouTube.

[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ATheSwedishSupremeCourtsDecisionBUSvWikimediaFINAL-English_Translation.pdf&page=1
[2]
http://www.nyteknik.se/digitalisering/hd-ger-konstnarer-ratt-mot-wikimedia-6537800

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Johan Jönsson  wrote:

> 2016-04-06 18:05 GMT+02:00 Castelo Branco :
> >> The decision specifically and repeatedly states that the commercial
> >> aspect is irrelevant, as such a database "typically has a not
> >> insignificant commercial value" – whether the images in this
> >> particular case are or can be used commercially or not. See paragraphs
> >> 21 and 23.
> >>
> >> //Johan Jönsson
> >> --
> >>
> >
> > Note that "not insignificant" = significant. The decision points exactly
> > that the commercial aspect is relevant, and the artists should have
> > participation on it.
> > "The court finds that the artists are entitled to that value"[1], this is
> > what the decision says, at least according to The Guardian. I couldn't
> > understand the original decision, even if i have had access to it.
> > What is found in these paragraphs you've mentioned?
>
> In these paragraphs (and I think I meant 20 and 23, though 21 is also
> relevant – sorry) you find the courts argument that the commercial or
> lack of commercial aspect is irrelevant and that the scale is what
> matters. The decision is rather explicit on this point (e.g. "Huruvida
> förfogandet sker i kommersiellt syfte saknar betydelse"). The quote
> you refer to is regarding the fact that we're talking about a
> commercial scale: It's not about the specific ability to reuse content
> from this database, but the court argues that at a certain size,
> there's an inherent potential commercial value that the artists are
> entitled to. This argument is not made in the context of free licenses
> or others being able to reuse the content, but refers to the scope of
> offentligkonst.se.
>
> Now, I'm not a lawyer, so there's always a chance I could be mistaken,
> but I have read both the article you refer to and the decision and
> while there's nothing wrong with the former, as a newspaper article,
> it's still a shorter article about ten pages of legal text regarding a
> fairly intricate piece of copyright law. I would strongly advise
> against doing legal interpretation without having access to the
> decision in question, or a good translation thereof, because there are
> definitely aspects the newspaper article doesn't touch.
>
> //Johan Jönsson
> --
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Sweden loses copyright suit

[Johan Jönsson]

2016-04-06 18:05 GMT+02:00 Castelo Branco :
>> The decision specifically and repeatedly states that the commercial
>> aspect is irrelevant, as such a database "typically has a not
>> insignificant commercial value" – whether the images in this
>> particular case are or can be used commercially or not. See paragraphs
>> 21 and 23.
>>
>> //Johan Jönsson
>> --
>>
>
> Note that "not insignificant" = significant. The decision points exactly
> that the commercial aspect is relevant, and the artists should have
> participation on it.
> "The court finds that the artists are entitled to that value"[1], this is
> what the decision says, at least according to The Guardian. I couldn't
> understand the original decision, even if i have had access to it.
> What is found in these paragraphs you've mentioned?

In these paragraphs (and I think I meant 20 and 23, though 21 is also
relevant – sorry) you find the courts argument that the commercial or
lack of commercial aspect is irrelevant and that the scale is what
matters. The decision is rather explicit on this point (e.g. "Huruvida
förfogandet sker i kommersiellt syfte saknar betydelse"). The quote
you refer to is regarding the fact that we're talking about a
commercial scale: It's not about the specific ability to reuse content
from this database, but the court argues that at a certain size,
there's an inherent potential commercial value that the artists are
entitled to. This argument is not made in the context of free licenses
or others being able to reuse the content, but refers to the scope of
offentligkonst.se.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, so there's always a chance I could be mistaken,
but I have read both the article you refer to and the decision and
while there's nothing wrong with the former, as a newspaper article,
it's still a shorter article about ten pages of legal text regarding a
fairly intricate piece of copyright law. I would strongly advise
against doing legal interpretation without having access to the
decision in question, or a good translation thereof, because there are
definitely aspects the newspaper article doesn't touch.

//Johan Jönsson
--

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Sweden loses copyright suit

[Castelo Branco]

> The decision specifically and repeatedly states that the commercial
> aspect is irrelevant, as such a database "typically has a not
> insignificant commercial value" – whether the images in this
> particular case are or can be used commercially or not. See paragraphs
> 21 and 23.
>
> //Johan Jönsson
> --
>

Note that "not insignificant" = significant. The decision points exactly
that the commercial aspect is relevant, and the artists should have
participation on it.
"The court finds that the artists are entitled to that value"[1], this is
what the decision says, at least according to The Guardian. I couldn't
understand the original decision, even if i have had access to it.
What is found in these paragraphs you've mentioned?

CasteloBranco

[1]
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/wikimedias-free-photo-database-of-artworks-violates-copyright-court-rules
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Sweden loses copyright suit

[WereSpielChequers]

The blog still uses a whited out example of an 1854 statue, yet the discussion 
is supposedly about the sculptor's copyright.

Is the Swedish court trying to imply that artists and their heirs have a near 
indefinite copyright period for sculpture on display in Sweden? Or is this a 
modern statue of a chap who died in 1854? The blurb describes the statue as 
being public domain, so I suspect it is just a misleading picture, it would be 
better to use a picture with a whited out statue that is still in copyright. 

Those journalists and lawyers who support this judgment will try to spin this 
as being about the rights of living artists. So I'd suggest using the example 
of the oldest statue you can find in the database that is still in copyright, 
especially if the initial heirs are also long dead. A sentence in the blog post 
along the lines of "copyright in Sweden lasts for x years after the artist 
dies, so some of the artworks that the court is trying to restrict public 
access to are over y years old".

It might also be worth adding that Wikimedia Commons, wikimedia's main media 
library operates under US law. Though individuals who add or use material also 
need to comply with the law where they are.

Regards

WereSpielChequers

> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Sweden loses copyright suit

[Johan Jönsson]

2016-04-06 0:57 GMT+02:00 Lilburne :
> You still haven't got it right. What you can't do is publish a database of
> images for commercial use.
>
> If I were to go to Sweden take photos of every publicly placed work of art
> and put them on a website
> there wouldn't be an issue. If I were to put them on a website and announce
> that they could be used
> by commercial enterprises for any purpose then I would have a problem.
>
> Its the creation of a database of images for commercial reuse that is the
> problem.
>

The decision specifically and repeatedly states that the commercial
aspect is irrelevant, as such a database "typically has a not
insignificant commercial value" – whether the images in this
particular case are or can be used commercially or not. See paragraphs
21 and 23.

//Johan Jönsson
--

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Sweden loses copyright suit

[Lilburne]

You still haven't got it right. What you can't do is publish a database 
of images for commercial use.


If I were to go to Sweden take photos of every publicly placed work of 
art and put them on a website
there wouldn't be an issue. If I were to put them on a website and 
announce that they could be used

by commercial enterprises for any purpose then I would have a problem.

Its the creation of a database of images for commercial reuse that is 
the problem.


On 05/04/2016 20:40, Samantha Lien wrote:


Hi Andreas,


This blog post was corrected earlier this morning PST:

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/04/strike-against-freedom-panorama/


The sentence you mentioned now reads:

The Court decided that Swedish copyright law does not allow Wikimedia 
Sverige to post images in its online database offentligkonst.se 
 (a website / database covering publicly 
placed art) without permission from the artist.



There are also correction notes at the top and end of the post, and 
we’ve updated our social media posts from the @Wikipedia Facebook and 
Twitter accounts to acknowledge and reflect this correction.



Thank you,

Sam


On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Lilburne 
mailto:lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net>> 
wrote:


Its not "a large-scale online database" per se. Its the commercial
aspect of it that is at issue.


 On 05/04/2016 19:06, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

Report in The Guardian:


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/wikimedias-free-photo-database-of-artworks-violates-copyright-court-rules

Wikimedia Sweden 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

WMF blog post:

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/04/strike-against-freedom-panorama/

I would note here that in my opinion, the WMF blog post and some
journalists who seem to have read it materially misrepresent
the decision
made, when they say or imply that


The Court decided that Swedish copyright law does not allow
individuals or
organizations to post images online of publicly-placed artwork
without
permission from the artist.


Supreme Court Justice Lars Edlund has expressly contradicted
that. He's
made very clear that the decision is specifically about a
large-scale
online database, and does not impact users who want to post a
picture to
Facebook or Instagram.


http://www.svt.se/kultur/konst/brottsligt-sprida-bilder-av-offentligt-konst-pa-natet


http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgoranden/2016/2016-04-04%20%C3%96%20849-15%20Beslut.pdf

Andreas
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
?subject=unsubscribe>



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
?subject=unsubscribe>




--
*Samantha Lien*
Communications | Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

sl...@wikimedia.org 







___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Sweden loses copyright suit

[Samantha Lien]

Hi Andreas,

This blog post was corrected earlier this morning PST:

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/04/strike-against-freedom-panorama/

The sentence you mentioned now reads:

The Court decided that Swedish copyright law does not allow Wikimedia
Sverige to post images in its online database offentligkonst.se (a website
/ database covering publicly placed art) without permission from the
artist.

There are also correction notes at the top and end of the post, and we’ve
updated our social media posts from the @Wikipedia Facebook and Twitter
accounts to acknowledge and reflect this correction.

Thank you,

Sam


On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Lilburne 
wrote:

> Its not "a large-scale online database" per se. Its the commercial aspect
> of it that is at issue.
>
>
>  On 05/04/2016 19:06, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> Report in The Guardian:
>>
>>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/wikimedias-free-photo-database-of-artworks-violates-copyright-court-rules
>>
>> Wikimedia Sweden 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
>>
>> WMF blog post:
>>
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/04/strike-against-freedom-panorama/
>>
>> I would note here that in my opinion, the WMF blog post and some
>> journalists who seem to have read it materially misrepresent the decision
>> made, when they say or imply that
>>
>> 
>> The Court decided that Swedish copyright law does not allow individuals or
>> organizations to post images online of publicly-placed artwork without
>> permission from the artist.
>> 
>>
>> Supreme Court Justice Lars Edlund has expressly contradicted that. He's
>> made very clear that the decision is specifically about a large-scale
>> online database, and does not impact users who want to post a picture to
>> Facebook or Instagram.
>>
>>
>> http://www.svt.se/kultur/konst/brottsligt-sprida-bilder-av-offentligt-konst-pa-natet
>>
>>
>> http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgoranden/2016/2016-04-04%20%C3%96%20849-15%20Beslut.pdf
>>
>> Andreas
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
*Samantha Lien*
Communications | Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

sl...@wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Sweden loses copyright suit

[Andreas Kolbe]

Thanks, Samantha. Much appreciated.

Andreas

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Samantha Lien  wrote:

> Hi Andreas,
>
> This blog post was corrected earlier this morning PST:
>
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/04/strike-against-freedom-panorama/
>
> The sentence you mentioned now reads:
>
> The Court decided that Swedish copyright law does not allow Wikimedia
> Sverige to post images in its online database offentligkonst.se (a
> website / database covering publicly placed art) without permission from
> the artist.
>
> There are also correction notes at the top and end of the post, and we’ve
> updated our social media posts from the @Wikipedia Facebook and Twitter
> accounts to acknowledge and reflect this correction.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Sam
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Lilburne 
> wrote:
>
>> Its not "a large-scale online database" per se. Its the commercial aspect
>> of it that is at issue.
>>
>>
>>  On 05/04/2016 19:06, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>>
>>> Report in The Guardian:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/wikimedias-free-photo-database-of-artworks-violates-copyright-court-rules
>>>
>>> Wikimedia Sweden 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
>>>
>>> WMF blog post:
>>>
>>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/04/strike-against-freedom-panorama/
>>>
>>> I would note here that in my opinion, the WMF blog post and some
>>> journalists who seem to have read it materially misrepresent the decision
>>> made, when they say or imply that
>>>
>>> 
>>> The Court decided that Swedish copyright law does not allow individuals
>>> or
>>> organizations to post images online of publicly-placed artwork without
>>> permission from the artist.
>>> 
>>>
>>> Supreme Court Justice Lars Edlund has expressly contradicted that. He's
>>> made very clear that the decision is specifically about a large-scale
>>> online database, and does not impact users who want to post a picture to
>>> Facebook or Instagram.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.svt.se/kultur/konst/brottsligt-sprida-bilder-av-offentligt-konst-pa-natet
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgoranden/2016/2016-04-04%20%C3%96%20849-15%20Beslut.pdf
>>>
>>> Andreas
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Samantha Lien*
> Communications | Wikimedia Foundation
> 149 New Montgomery Street
> San Francisco, CA 94105
>
> sl...@wikimedia.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Sweden loses copyright suit

[Lilburne]

Its not "a large-scale online database" per se. Its the commercial 
aspect of it that is at issue.


 On 05/04/2016 19:06, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

Report in The Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/wikimedias-free-photo-database-of-artworks-violates-copyright-court-rules

Wikimedia Sweden 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

WMF blog post:

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/04/strike-against-freedom-panorama/

I would note here that in my opinion, the WMF blog post and some
journalists who seem to have read it materially misrepresent the decision
made, when they say or imply that


The Court decided that Swedish copyright law does not allow individuals or
organizations to post images online of publicly-placed artwork without
permission from the artist.


Supreme Court Justice Lars Edlund has expressly contradicted that. He's
made very clear that the decision is specifically about a large-scale
online database, and does not impact users who want to post a picture to
Facebook or Instagram.

http://www.svt.se/kultur/konst/brottsligt-sprida-bilder-av-offentligt-konst-pa-natet

http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgoranden/2016/2016-04-04%20%C3%96%20849-15%20Beslut.pdf

Andreas
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Sweden loses copyright suit

[Andreas Kolbe]

Report in The Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/wikimedias-free-photo-database-of-artworks-violates-copyright-court-rules

Wikimedia Sweden 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

WMF blog post:

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/04/strike-against-freedom-panorama/

I would note here that in my opinion, the WMF blog post and some
journalists who seem to have read it materially misrepresent the decision
made, when they say or imply that


The Court decided that Swedish copyright law does not allow individuals or
organizations to post images online of publicly-placed artwork without
permission from the artist.


Supreme Court Justice Lars Edlund has expressly contradicted that. He's
made very clear that the decision is specifically about a large-scale
online database, and does not impact users who want to post a picture to
Facebook or Instagram.

http://www.svt.se/kultur/konst/brottsligt-sprida-bilder-av-offentligt-konst-pa-natet

http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgoranden/2016/2016-04-04%20%C3%96%20849-15%20Beslut.pdf

Andreas
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,