2016-04-06 18:05 GMT+02:00 Castelo Branco <michelcastelobra...@gmail.com>: >> 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", 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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>