[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?

David Gerard-2
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>
Date: 2 March 2013 10:59
Subject: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?
To: [hidden email]


Hello,
Apologies for cross-posting, but WMNL was recently approached for
helping start a photo contest for WWII monuments. Based on this
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_NC.svg
We assumed that these photographs could be used on Wikipedia, but the
recent discussions about the DMCA takedown notice for this
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Houseball_(Oldenburg_and_van_Bruggen)
indicate that FOP in Europe is not really FOP.

To be careful, we have decided to cancel the photo contest idea,
though people are of course terribly disappointed about this.

Does anyone know the status of this discussion? Of course, WLM has
brought in several thousand of these "possibly-not-FOP" sculptures, as
they are often WLM monuments themselves, or are situated directly in
front of buildings that are WLM monuments.

Thanks in advance for any info you have - we need a short and sweet
way to inform the WWII monument committee and WMNL volunteers why we
are cancelling.
Jane

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?

Tobias Oelgarte
The problem are not the European laws. It are the US laws that don't
recognize the European FOP. That means it would be perfectly legal to
host such images on an European server (in a country that recognizes
FOP), but not on US servers, because they are subject to US law.

Am 02.03.2013 12:34, schrieb David Gerard:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>
> Date: 2 March 2013 10:59
> Subject: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?
> To: [hidden email]
>
>
> Hello,
> Apologies for cross-posting, but WMNL was recently approached for
> helping start a photo contest for WWII monuments. Based on this
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_NC.svg
> We assumed that these photographs could be used on Wikipedia, but the
> recent discussions about the DMCA takedown notice for this
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Houseball_(Oldenburg_and_van_Bruggen)
> indicate that FOP in Europe is not really FOP.
>
> To be careful, we have decided to cancel the photo contest idea,
> though people are of course terribly disappointed about this.
>
> Does anyone know the status of this discussion? Of course, WLM has
> brought in several thousand of these "possibly-not-FOP" sculptures, as
> they are often WLM monuments themselves, or are situated directly in
> front of buildings that are WLM monuments.
>
> Thanks in advance for any info you have - we need a short and sweet
> way to inform the WWII monument committee and WMNL volunteers why we
> are cancelling.
> Jane
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?

James Alexander-3
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Tobias Oelgarte <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> The problem are not the European laws. It are the US laws that don't
> recognize the European FOP. That means it would be perfectly legal to host
> such images on an European server (in a country that recognizes FOP), but
> not on US servers, because they are subject to US law.
>

 I'm sorry, I keep seeing this argument and while I can understand the
basic idea every time I see it I feel like little kitten dies. There is no
doubt that the US FOP laws are a little insane and that the EU ones are
generally much more lenient, however, it is obviously far far more
complectated then that. There are plenty of EU laws which would are
applicable to site/image hosting which are far more complicated and harder
(or impossible) for us to follow. Overall the laws in the US have still
tended to be much much better to host, and that doesn't even get into the
problem of hosting in multiple locations and still trying to serve to a
site hosted (or with staff) in the US.

James

(Personal opinion, not a lawyer and not said as a staff member)
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?

Fae-3
On 3 March 2013 06:50, James Alexander <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Tobias Oelgarte <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> The problem are not the European laws. It are the US laws that don't
>> recognize the European FOP. That means it would be perfectly legal to host
>> such images on an European server (in a country that recognizes FOP), but
>> not on US servers, because they are subject to US law.
>>
>
>  I'm sorry, I keep seeing this argument and while I can understand the
> basic idea every time I see it I feel like little kitten dies. There is no
> doubt that the US FOP laws are a little insane and that the EU ones are
> generally much more lenient, however, it is obviously far far more
> complectated then that. There are plenty of EU laws which would are
> applicable to site/image hosting which are far more complicated and harder
> (or impossible) for us to follow. Overall the laws in the US have still
> tended to be much much better to host, and that doesn't even get into the
> problem of hosting in multiple locations and still trying to serve to a
> site hosted (or with staff) in the US.

*No kittens were harmed during this discussion*

We should keep an open mind, and the location of the servers to
support the global movement should be reviewed and seen to be reviewed
on a periodic basis, if nothing else international law, economics and
political stability, changes every year. By default, we would never
change unless there were jolly good reasons to justify the hassle and
expense; though folks are always going to enjoy challenging the status
quo, which is probably a healthy thing and the kittens get their
dinners regardless.

Cheers,
Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?

Lodewijk
However, the location of the servers wasn't the topic of the original
discussion :) So jumping back to that: Is there already a clear outcome on
the Commons community regarding the possible deletion of images that are
legal in the country of origin but might not be permitted under US
copyright law?

Lodewijk

2013/3/3 Fae <[hidden email]>

> On 3 March 2013 06:50, James Alexander <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Tobias Oelgarte <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> The problem are not the European laws. It are the US laws that don't
> >> recognize the European FOP. That means it would be perfectly legal to
> host
> >> such images on an European server (in a country that recognizes FOP),
> but
> >> not on US servers, because they are subject to US law.
> >>
> >
> >  I'm sorry, I keep seeing this argument and while I can understand the
> > basic idea every time I see it I feel like little kitten dies. There is
> no
> > doubt that the US FOP laws are a little insane and that the EU ones are
> > generally much more lenient, however, it is obviously far far more
> > complectated then that. There are plenty of EU laws which would are
> > applicable to site/image hosting which are far more complicated and
> harder
> > (or impossible) for us to follow. Overall the laws in the US have still
> > tended to be much much better to host, and that doesn't even get into the
> > problem of hosting in multiple locations and still trying to serve to a
> > site hosted (or with staff) in the US.
>
> *No kittens were harmed during this discussion*
>
> We should keep an open mind, and the location of the servers to
> support the global movement should be reviewed and seen to be reviewed
> on a periodic basis, if nothing else international law, economics and
> political stability, changes every year. By default, we would never
> change unless there were jolly good reasons to justify the hassle and
> expense; though folks are always going to enjoy challenging the status
> quo, which is probably a healthy thing and the kittens get their
> dinners regardless.
>
> Cheers,
> Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?

Jane Darnell
After discussing this issue with the daughter of a Dutch WWII veteran
(yes, she's old!) I have come to the conclusion that the logic for
handling photos of artwork on Dutch WWII memorials should follow the
same rationale as this one:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Boy_Scout_Memorial-27527.jpg

In that discussion, the whole category for the Washington, DC Vietnam
memorial was nominated for deletion, see here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Vietnam_Veterans_Memorial
The last word on that discussion was "I called the Smithsonian and the
Park Service about this. Aside from laughing, they were confused why
anyone would assume that the copyright was owned by anyone except the
USGov, or that it wan't in the PD. I can't get anyone on the record
about this."

I would go so far as to assume that the same is true for Dutch WWII
memorials, and if we cannot come up with a good way of preserving
Dutch WWII memorial images for the Dutch Wikimedia community to use in
any Wikipedia project (so not just the NL wiki), then I propose a
Dutch Wikipedia blackout on May 4th out of protest, since obviously
the only hindrance is the fear of Wikimedia Commons users that they
will be legally pursued, and I assume that this fear is real enough
that we can go public with it.

On a personal level, as a Dutch citizen, I would be willing to be the
first to be tried legally on such an issue, and after my discussion
this morning, I believe I could crowd source my legal fees with
support from the Dutch Wikipedia community.

Jane

2013/3/3, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>:

> However, the location of the servers wasn't the topic of the original
> discussion :) So jumping back to that: Is there already a clear outcome on
> the Commons community regarding the possible deletion of images that are
> legal in the country of origin but might not be permitted under US
> copyright law?
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2013/3/3 Fae <[hidden email]>
>
>> On 3 March 2013 06:50, James Alexander <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Tobias Oelgarte <
>> > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The problem are not the European laws. It are the US laws that don't
>> >> recognize the European FOP. That means it would be perfectly legal to
>> host
>> >> such images on an European server (in a country that recognizes FOP),
>> but
>> >> not on US servers, because they are subject to US law.
>> >>
>> >
>> >  I'm sorry, I keep seeing this argument and while I can understand the
>> > basic idea every time I see it I feel like little kitten dies. There is
>> no
>> > doubt that the US FOP laws are a little insane and that the EU ones are
>> > generally much more lenient, however, it is obviously far far more
>> > complectated then that. There are plenty of EU laws which would are
>> > applicable to site/image hosting which are far more complicated and
>> harder
>> > (or impossible) for us to follow. Overall the laws in the US have still
>> > tended to be much much better to host, and that doesn't even get into
>> > the
>> > problem of hosting in multiple locations and still trying to serve to a
>> > site hosted (or with staff) in the US.
>>
>> *No kittens were harmed during this discussion*
>>
>> We should keep an open mind, and the location of the servers to
>> support the global movement should be reviewed and seen to be reviewed
>> on a periodic basis, if nothing else international law, economics and
>> political stability, changes every year. By default, we would never
>> change unless there were jolly good reasons to justify the hassle and
>> expense; though folks are always going to enjoy challenging the status
>> quo, which is probably a healthy thing and the kittens get their
>> dinners regardless.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Fae
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?

Fae-3
On 3 March 2013 12:10, Jane Darnell <[hidden email]> wrote:
...

> In that discussion, the whole category for the Washington, DC Vietnam
> memorial was nominated for deletion, see here:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Vietnam_Veterans_Memorial
> The last word on that discussion was "I called the Smithsonian and the
> Park Service about this. Aside from laughing, they were confused why
> anyone would assume that the copyright was owned by anyone except the
> USGov, or that it wan't in the PD. I can't get anyone on the record
> about this."
>
> I would go so far as to assume that the same is true for Dutch WWII
> memorials, and if we cannot come up with a good way of preserving
> Dutch WWII memorial images for the Dutch Wikimedia community to use in
> any Wikipedia project (so not just the NL wiki), then I propose a
> Dutch Wikipedia blackout on May 4th out of protest, since obviously
> the only hindrance is the fear of Wikimedia Commons users that they
> will be legally pursued, and I assume that this fear is real enough
> that we can go public with it.
>
> On a personal level, as a Dutch citizen, I would be willing to be the
> first to be tried legally on such an issue, and after my discussion
> this morning, I believe I could crowd source my legal fees with
> support from the Dutch Wikipedia community.

Hi Jane,

I know it's all rather frustrating. I suggest a common sense approach
to the Commons community. There are a few rather good copyright
wikilawyers that dominate the discussion on Commons, the primary way
of handling them (us?) is to make sure that there is (i) clear policy
or agreed guidelines and (ii) legal clarification and external advice
where this would be helpful. Our critical wikilawyers do not make the
law, but they do help highlight how daft it can be at times. :-)

Now, in the *real world*, there is unlikely to be any issue were the
GLAM project you envisage to upload 1,000 or 100,000 images. A tiny
percentage will be deleted for various reasons, as a matter of course,
no matter how hard you try to run detailed guidelines. The idea that
such a project either must not proceed, or would be judged a failure
by the Wikimedia community, were a single image to be a potential
copyright problem, is not feasible, and we do not want such great
projects to be paralysed for fear of criticism because we have not got
full answers to every possible risk. The key Commons policy to
consider is the Precautionary Principle, so long as there are no
*significant* doubts with regard to copyright, then this indicates it
is perfectly okay to upload images where one has taken simple and
obvious precautions.[1]

Commons benefits from another great community approach, that of
staying mellow, you may want to take the Smithsonian's approach and
laugh most of this away. I suggest rather than brinkmanship and
calling for black-outs and legal cases, you consider different avenues
of community consultation, such as relevant questions on the village
pump, the copyright noticeboard and set up a GLAM Commons WikiProject
page for long term guidelines for your project members to discuss and
improve. With such consultation banked, it would be hard for anyone to
come along later and criticise you for not trying to address the issue
and reach a practical conclusion.[2][3][4][5]

My viewpoint is as a well known Wikimedia Commons contributor with
40,000+ image uploads, 600,000+ edits and over 1.2 million further
edits by bot. Oh, and I do other more important stuff too. :-D

Links
1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle
2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Staying_mellow
3. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:GLAM
4. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright
5. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump

Cheers,
Fae
--
[hidden email] http://j.mp/faewm
Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?

Jane Darnell
Hi Fae,
Thanks for your thoughts. I think the problem is one of definition of
terms. I checked out the links you listed and they are all
interesting, but I don't believe any of them are applicable to the
case of war monuments and memorials. I think war monuments and
memorials are by definition intended to keep the public aware of the
human sacrifices made in the past in any given municipality.
Therefore, when an artist (who is often a local artist) is given the
commission to create such a memorial, that person sees the commission
as a public honor and relinquishes copyright of any images of the
memorial to the municipality in question. I think there is a huge
difference between a municipal monument for "the tomb of the unknown
soldier" versus a private monument for the "tomb of a specific
soldier". I don't know if anyone ever asked Maya Lin what she thought
of the whole controversy, but it would definitely be worth finding
out.

As far as the Netherlands go, they can probably obtain permission from
heirs or living artists in the usual Commons way, which is doable I
think, since it's such a small country and the war memorials are all
so well documented. I think I will try to do this for Haarlem as a
test case, since for Haarlem, this one is important:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Man_voor_het_Vuurpeleton2.jpg

As far as educational importance goes, I think the whole list here:
http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/encyclopedia/

is worthy of a Commons photo project, and I really doubt any artist
involved would object to photos of such monuments being on Wikipedia.

Jane
Jane

2013/3/3, Fae <[hidden email]>:

> On 3 March 2013 12:10, Jane Darnell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...
>> In that discussion, the whole category for the Washington, DC Vietnam
>> memorial was nominated for deletion, see here:
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Vietnam_Veterans_Memorial
>> The last word on that discussion was "I called the Smithsonian and the
>> Park Service about this. Aside from laughing, they were confused why
>> anyone would assume that the copyright was owned by anyone except the
>> USGov, or that it wan't in the PD. I can't get anyone on the record
>> about this."
>>
>> I would go so far as to assume that the same is true for Dutch WWII
>> memorials, and if we cannot come up with a good way of preserving
>> Dutch WWII memorial images for the Dutch Wikimedia community to use in
>> any Wikipedia project (so not just the NL wiki), then I propose a
>> Dutch Wikipedia blackout on May 4th out of protest, since obviously
>> the only hindrance is the fear of Wikimedia Commons users that they
>> will be legally pursued, and I assume that this fear is real enough
>> that we can go public with it.
>>
>> On a personal level, as a Dutch citizen, I would be willing to be the
>> first to be tried legally on such an issue, and after my discussion
>> this morning, I believe I could crowd source my legal fees with
>> support from the Dutch Wikipedia community.
>
> Hi Jane,
>
> I know it's all rather frustrating. I suggest a common sense approach
> to the Commons community. There are a few rather good copyright
> wikilawyers that dominate the discussion on Commons, the primary way
> of handling them (us?) is to make sure that there is (i) clear policy
> or agreed guidelines and (ii) legal clarification and external advice
> where this would be helpful. Our critical wikilawyers do not make the
> law, but they do help highlight how daft it can be at times. :-)
>
> Now, in the *real world*, there is unlikely to be any issue were the
> GLAM project you envisage to upload 1,000 or 100,000 images. A tiny
> percentage will be deleted for various reasons, as a matter of course,
> no matter how hard you try to run detailed guidelines. The idea that
> such a project either must not proceed, or would be judged a failure
> by the Wikimedia community, were a single image to be a potential
> copyright problem, is not feasible, and we do not want such great
> projects to be paralysed for fear of criticism because we have not got
> full answers to every possible risk. The key Commons policy to
> consider is the Precautionary Principle, so long as there are no
> *significant* doubts with regard to copyright, then this indicates it
> is perfectly okay to upload images where one has taken simple and
> obvious precautions.[1]
>
> Commons benefits from another great community approach, that of
> staying mellow, you may want to take the Smithsonian's approach and
> laugh most of this away. I suggest rather than brinkmanship and
> calling for black-outs and legal cases, you consider different avenues
> of community consultation, such as relevant questions on the village
> pump, the copyright noticeboard and set up a GLAM Commons WikiProject
> page for long term guidelines for your project members to discuss and
> improve. With such consultation banked, it would be hard for anyone to
> come along later and criticise you for not trying to address the issue
> and reach a practical conclusion.[2][3][4][5]
>
> My viewpoint is as a well known Wikimedia Commons contributor with
> 40,000+ image uploads, 600,000+ edits and over 1.2 million further
> edits by bot. Oh, and I do other more important stuff too. :-D
>
> Links
> 1.
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle
> 2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Staying_mellow
> 3. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:GLAM
> 4. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright
> 5. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump
>
> Cheers,
> Fae
> --
> [hidden email] http://j.mp/faewm
> Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l