dake wrote: >> Here is a similar example. By law, all bank notes are in the public >> domain in Switzerland, so one is allowed to make copies of them. >> However, it does not mean that one is allowed to copy them in order to >> make counterfeit money ! > > What about the "specimen" text above the notes ? Do we have to put it on > the pictures to avoid the "counterfeit" stuff ?
It is not an obligation. It is up to the person who reproduces the banknote to make sure that the reproduction can not be mistaken for a real note. Even the Swiss National Bank can not give a definitive answer on this topic, because it is up to the justice to decide if someone is counterfeitinging or not. However, they *believe* that if you follow their guidelines (http://www.snb.ch/e/banknoten/merkblatt_e.pdf: add "specimen", do not print in the same size as the original, etc) you will be in the clear. But you may also be in the clear without following their guidelines, or you may be violating the law even if you follow them (unlikely, though). > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Swiss_bank_note_security_text.JPG > > "Banknotes are not protected by the Swiss Federal Copyright Statute. > However, individual works reproduced on banknotes are subject to > copyright protection provided they have not been reproduced recognisably > as a part of the banknote. The works protected under copyright law may > only be reproduced and adapted with the permission of the copyright holder." > > hmm..this is quite ambiguous. Let's take the example of the 200 note > with Ramuz. The big photography of Ramuz could be copyrighted, it is a > recognizable part of the note. If I can scan the whole note, I cannot > put it with the PD license on Commons. The wording above is maybe a bit confusing. If you scan the whole note, then the picture of Ramuz is part of the banknote, and you can copy it --- and put it on commons. If you zoom in on this picture only, it is still clear that it is part of the banknote (because of the special way in which the picture is printed), so you should be in the clear. What you can not do is find the original picture somewhere else, and copy it without restriction (or do some image processing on the bank note image so that it does not look like a banknote anymore). It is a more general problem: a picture could be PD (or free), but this does not mean that all its parts are PD. For example, take a random picture somewhere in the street. The copyright clearly belongs to you, publish it under a free licence --- no problem. Now look at your picture: if there is a poster somewhere in the background, and you zoom on it until you can see it clearly, it does not mean that the resulting zoomed-in image will be free too ! It is probably not a problem in normal life, but Hollywood lawyers spend hours and millions of $$$ making sure that anything that could be copyrightable in a scene of a movie is either PD or has been properly licenced. This includes posters, but also the design of a chair, and that sort of things (I had an article about this, I could probably find it if someone is interested). > I have a better example from Commons. It is by far less visible than the > other picture (though I guess everybody knows about it). Probably a > "silly case" candidate : > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Panzerturm.jpg Yeah, probably a silly case which should be all right. The problem with military logic is that there is none; they tend to put the word "secret" on anything that they believe to be important (it probably makes them look important too...) even if it has been common knowledge for a long time. They are usually worried about "big things", however: a secret document, or a picture of the bunker for the Federal Council along with the exact street address. Note however that it is likely that only the first person who publishes a military secret is liable; obiously, once it has been published, it is not a secret anymore... so even though the Sonntagsblick is under investigation for having published the Egyptian fax intercepted by the Swiss Secret Services (Onyx), it should be no problem to have published it on en: (under fair use). >> No problem either — nobody owns the rights of what happens during >> a soccer match. > > I asked that because I know there were some restrictions during the > Olympic Games at Turin (pictures for private use only, not commercial, > blabla). Same for the US Open or another major tennis tournament. *If* you manage to take the photo, you can do whatever you want with it afterwards. What they can do is prevent you from entering the stadium with a camera, or with anything that looks too professional (e.g. a tripod, or a big zoom). There was a discussion of fr: about a similar issue: photography in museums (in particular the Louvres in Paris). The paintings themselves are not protected by copyright (PD), but the museum has no obligation to let you enter its premises with a camera to let you take a picture. I have never tried that in Switzerland, though. >> C'est du pipeau, a mon avis ! Just digitalising an image does not >> produce an "original" work (quite the opposite: when you digitalise an >> image, your goal is to be as close as possible to the original one), so >> this is unlikely to be protected by copyright. See the "Meili" case >> referenced at the page you cited above (now en:Copyright law of >> Switzerland). Have you tried asking the Bpun ? > > I haven't tried yet, I will send a mail. Note that I have often seen > these "copyright" on PD pictures or/and disclaimers. I was very > interested in the pictures of the BIUM. Example : Yes, people like to put this (c) on anything, even when there is no chance whatsoever that it is copyrighted. Does not make the life of users very easy. > http://www.bium.univ-paris5.fr/monstres/moyen/491.jpg > > But : > > Toutes les images de la banque sont © BIUM. > Leur reproduction est strictement réservée à l'usage privé > du copiste et non destinée à une utilisation collective The situation is France seems to be quite different; there, even a simple copy (photo of a picture) can be protected and the author of the photograph have copyright on it. There are some references on fr:. Frederic _______________________________________________ Wikimediach-l mailing list Wikimediach-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l