Hello,
Thanks a lot for clarification. But then why some of the copyrighted statues are published in Wikipedia?
E.g.: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luettelo_Helsingin_patsaista_ja_muistomerkeist... It's the whole list of them. With photos.
Is there a way to upload a photo of statue without breaking the legislation? E.g., with specific restrictions. It looks like there is but I can't understand how.
Is it possible to organize "Wiki loves monuments" campaign (http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org/contest/) in Finland? It looks like it is legal to upload only photo of buildings, not monuments?
2015-09-06 11:21 GMT+03:00 Reinhard Müller reinhard@fsfe.org:
This came up recently in the context of European harmonisation, and Wikipedia provides more information on the following page:
... and even more information here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Finland
In short: the creator of a piece of art generally holds copyright (actually more like "author's right") on the work, and distribution of any reproduction of the work (like a photograph of it) requires his/her consent. In many countries, there is an exception for works in public places, which is called "Freedom of Panorama".
In Finland, the exception only covers a) buildings and b) other works only for non-commercial purposes.
Since Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons explicity require permission to use for commercial uses, too, b) can't be applied for Commons.
I guess we all consider this a rather stupid rule, however there are coutries where it's far worse, for example in France.
Hi, Vitaly,
Am 2015-09-09 um 10:54 schrieb Vitaly Repin:
But then why some of the copyrighted statues are published in Wikipedia?
I have no idea. This clearly seems to be against the rules of Wikipedia to allow only for content which is also free for commercial use. Maybe you can ask at some Finnish Wikipedia general discussion page?
Is it possible to organize "Wiki loves monuments" campaign (http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org/contest/) in Finland? It looks like it is legal to upload only photo of buildings, not monuments?
It would of course also be ok to upload photos of monuments if the copyright has expired, i.e. 70 years after the creator has died.
Thanks,
It would of course also be ok to upload photos of monuments if the copyright has expired, i.e. 70 years after the creator has died.
True, and let me note how this is an incentive to kill architects and artists (and authors in general).
A few months ago my local newspaper celebrated the liberation of "The Little Prince" (Le Petit Prince), organizing a contest for pupils, like "redraw and rewrite your own little prince". The message to me was "we are all happy the author was shot 70 years ago", but very few noted that.
There's something awfully wrong in our rule-set.
/alessandro
↪ 2015-09-09 Wed 12:44, Alessandro Rubini rubini@gnudd.com:
It would of course also be ok to upload photos of monuments if the copyright has expired, i.e. 70 years after the creator has died.
True, and let me note how this is an incentive to kill architects and artists (and authors in general).
A few months ago my local newspaper celebrated the liberation of "The Little Prince" (Le Petit Prince), organizing a contest for pupils, like "redraw and rewrite your own little prince". The message to me was "we are all happy the author was shot 70 years ago", but very few noted that.
There's something awfully wrong in our rule-set.
/alessandro
The most absurd part of this, is that in France, this is still not in the public domain because Antoine de Saint-Exupéry was declared “dead for France” and thus the duration of the author’s rights on his works last longer.