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: Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>