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.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org