Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Finland50

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:PD-Finland50

[edit]
(see also the related debate Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Sweden-photo and Deletion requests/Template:PD-Denmark50)

This is a utterly useless license. While i do not dispute the 50 years for non-work photographs this case is similar to the PD-Italy-problem. The limits for works are very low, in case of Finland, Commons:Licensing#Finland states that only photographs in which the "[...] photographer had no control over the composition or lighting of the picture can not be concidered works of art.". I checked some pictures which where tagged with PD-Finland50, not a single one of them was a non-work under the described circumstances. The reason for deletion request on the template and not on the single picture: I can't imagine that there is a photograph which complies with the quoted requirements on "simpleness" and is of any use on commons. Actually Germany has the same requirements for simple photographs and i don't remember to have seen a useful simple photograph ever.--Wiggum 14:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once again these Germans come all over Europe to tell what to do. I tell you something, this is a Finnish law, and the Finnihs copyright council has given a decision that this image is not a work so you claims of not-simpleness are bollocks. -Samulili 22:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very astonishing example, i didn't know it before. Actually, with this picture being a simple work, COM:L is pretty wrong or at least extremely misleading. The photographer has "control over the composition or lighting of the picture" when he uses a simple photocamera (you know, diaphragm, exposure, film speed, used photographic lens, moment when he triggers the shutter etc.pp.), so this is a wording which applies to the example image you provided. If this "copyright council" (what is it?) is correct, the wording should be: "Virtually any photograph is a simple photograph. A picture is only considered as a photographic work when the following criteria apply: ...".
This leads me to the next consideration. There should be a testable distinction to use the template reasonable. I would like to see a picture which is considered a photograpic work or much better i would appreciate to see the hard criteria for photographic works.
Finally, with PD-Finland50 we have the same international implications like we had with PD-Italy before. Since each country has it's own definition of what is a "simple photograph" and the rule of shorter term isn't applicable within the EU, the pictures are still protected in a number of countries, in detail in all countries which have a very low limit for photograpic works (i.e. Germany and Austria) and in all countries without a distinction between simple photographs and works. Lupo kindly provided an overview on this issue: User:Lupo/Simple Photographs.--Wiggum 09:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiggum, I deeply respect your calm tone and I apologize for being such a jerk. I see how you were mislead by the text on the licensing page. I changed the text so that it is clear that the image is only an example. There were further problems on the page, too. The reasoning given was that of the other party in the dispute while the reasoning of the Copyright council was: "Council sees that the photograph -- -- is despite its historical importance a regular photo of current events. The photograph does not demonstrate original and personal contribution from the photographer and so it can't be considered to be -- a photographic work." The Council also says that the "threshold of originality" is typically considered to be quite high.
The Copyright council is a council set by the copyright law and whose purpose is to Ministry of Education in copyright questions and to give statements on the application of the law. It consists of parties from copyright holder, users of copyrighted material and legal experts.
It is my understanding that the legal experts in Finland agree that nobody really knows where the threshold of originality exaclty lies and why it is there. The council does not give legally binding statements and it doesn't create general rules but only handles individual cases. As it probably has the best experts of the field, its statement will nevertheless have a lot of influence in court. -Samulili 12:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of "the control over the composition or lighting of the picture" is not supposed to mean the usual technical changes made on the camera to produce a good image. It is supposed, in the context of Finnish law, to mean that the author specifically has chosen the overall composition or lighting in a way designed to produce an artistic quality to the picture. Most importantly, this applies to studio photos. Not a single person in Finland has ever tried to claim that a news image or a common family portrait would not fall under "simple photograph". The only persons having qualms over this are here, on the Commons. Let us not have a holier-than-thou attitude. --MPorciusCato 07:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has exactly the same issues as {{PD-Italy}}, namely that (a) we don't know where to draw the line between "simple photographs" and "photographic works", (b) that line would be different in any other country, so works that might be "simple photographs" in Finland would be "photographic works" in many other countries, and (c) we don't know precisely what the effects of EU directive 93/98/EEC with regards to that line (threshold of originality) are. Even if (c) should turn out to be a non-issue, (a) and (b) mean IMO that the template is unsuitable for the commons. It may make sense at the Finnish Wikipedia, but hardly on other Wikipedias. Lupo 13:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

c) I think it's a non issue when, in fact, we have nothing that would strongly indicate that the license is not good. Innocent before proven guilty, not the other way around.
b) If it is a general line that we can't approve of country specific PD-licenses, then we should first discuss that line and only afterwards delete ~100 country specific licenses.
a) How come we don't know where to draw the line in case of PD-Finland but we seem to know where to draw it in case of logos and we have {{PD-ineligible}}? -Samulili 09:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Well, Directive 93/98/EEC defines what a photographic work is, so the point where the line has to be drawn is now the same in all Member States. -- ３２４７ (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitions will always have to be interpreted by courts. EU countries have different court systems which may make (and probably do make) different interpretations, and the final word – as I understand it – can only come from en:Court of First Instance or en:European Court of Justice. -Samulili 11:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment re article six in the directive: Copyright protects photographs that are "the author's own intellectual creation". What does this mean? On what qualifications do 3247 and others interpret what it means? / Fred Chess 08:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the qualification that "no other criteria such as merit or purpose [are to be] taken into account". Germany and Austria have given a very strong interpretation of this. Even if you assume that the directive has been received differently in different EU countries and even under the presupposition (in contradiction to the German and Austrian courts interpretation of the directive) that Italian simple photos still exist, this does not make Italian simple photos free after 20 years for example in Sweden, where (under the same presupposition) they will be restricted for at least another 30 years. Sweden photos will be restricted for 70 pma in Germany, Austria, and surely other countries who follow their interpretation. There is no rule of the shorter term within the EU. Forum Shopping is possible. --Rtc 16:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we most of the World isn't in Germany. -Samulili 16:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other EU countries? Can you prove that the picture is not restricted the rest of the EU countries? --Rtc 01:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Rtc, there is a misunderstanding between us. I want to know, on what premise you and 3247 know what an "intellectual creation" refer to? According to Commons:Licensing the Finnish Copyright Council (in 2003?) considered this photo public domain because "-- despite its historical importance it is a regular photo of current events. The photograph does not demonstrate original and personal contribution from the photographer and so it can't be considered to be a photographic work." This is what I consider an interpretation by qualified people. If you say the Finnish Copyright Council is acting against E.U. directive, could you provide material by qualified people to support that claim? / Fred Chess 19:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. The point is that even if the picture might be free in Finland, it is only free according to the finnish law. Since there is no rule of shorter term within the EU, it would need to be free in each EU country to be legal, which it is for sure not, since it is illegal at least in Germany and Austria (where we know for sure) and many other EU countries (rights holder can try one after another...) Because of forum shopping, the picture may not be kept. If the Finnish rights owner does not succeed in Finland, he can go to a German court with the desired success. You are all somehow ignoring the many new possibilities european citizens have within Europe, including the possibility of forum shopping. We have a proof that forum shopping happens and that it works: a photo that was legal by Austrian panorama freedom and that was shot legally inside Austria and was sued for in Germany, because Germany has stricter panorama freedom rules. Successfully. I do not understand why we are discussing. --Rtc 01:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we care that it may not be used in Germany? Our licensing instructions say "Consequently any licence to use the material should apply in all jurisdictions relevant". No offence, but Germany is not a relevant jurisdiction. -Samulili 07:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it would only be Germany i would agree that we should ignore it. Actually, the issue concerns more than one country, please see the list made by Lupo. --Wiggum 12:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are no more relevant than Bambustan even if some of them are G8 members. These images have nothing to do with Germany. -Samulili 12:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok, I agree that it is probably better to start to remove images with PD-Finland, PD-Denmark50, and PD-Sweden-photo. They should be uploaded to those Wikipedias that thinks it is safe to use them. This might also mean that images from e.g. Germany who are copyright protected in Germany could be uploaded to e.g. Finnish Wikipedia as public domain under some circumstances.

Fred Chess 12:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samulii: the problem as I see it is that the states of the EU

As a result, there are too many states that (as far as we know) do not have lesser protection for simple photographs.

Fred Chess 12:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep ditto. Scoo 10:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Keep in mind that cheerleading votes must be ignored - if you don't make comment about copyright status or laws, it is pointless to vote --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of a rule is that "Because they vote against you, ignore them"?! There is a clear majority for keep here. MoRsE 19:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The comments disrespectful to others like those by Pfctdayelise must be ignored. --Irpen 21:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pfctdayelise is right. It is in the Commons rules that we do not count votes – for or against. They only may indicate which side has provided better arguments, but in the end, only arguments matter. -Samulili 14:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine that a column of {{vd}} had been more accepted then... To the point: I could very well have paraphrased some of the above discussion, yet I chose to say simply "ditto" to indicate that I've checked the nomination and rebuttal and agree with those wanting to keep the template. As I've earlier said on COM:DEL, I'm quite the layman when it comes to these issues. But I can't imagine a situation where say an heir of a Finnish photographer would go to court in Germany or any other nation and challenge the Finnish law. Until we have a precedent that show that that chapter 5 and other parts can be ignored, keep the template and images correctly associated with it. Scoo 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and be mindful of m:Copyright paranoia. Does any country's altering its copyright laws obliges the commons to delete images? Suppose tomorrow some remote island nation accepts the copyright law that would say life of the author +300 years? So keep and direct the wannabe copyright lawyers here to some productive activity like, you know, adding content. --Irpen 21:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When reading User:Lupo/Simple Photographs you will notice that this case is not about "some remote island nations". Besides, the productive activity here is adding free content. --Wiggum 22:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personal opinions of Lupo are just that and have as much weight as those of anyone else. Lupo is notorious for his original research and interesting interpretations of copyright law. Fortunately, he is not a justice of any court entitled to make sense of the copyright laws by interpreting the. As for the productive activity, I agree with you. And an unproductive activity is attempting to present free content as unfree in order to justify deletion of perfectly legal material. --Irpen 22:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any German court case has no relevance under Finnish law. If the German Wikipedia choses to exclude some images which a German judge claims is not free in Germany, then so be it. Germany may interpret laws like it sees fit. Finland has the same right, and so has the United Kingdom, Italy or any other member of the European Union. What if Iran or Sudan outlaws all images tomorrow? Or the Islamic courts in Somalia? I believe French law outlaws images of a lot of buildings. Ok, does that mean that we should remove all images of buildings because of this French law? Why not all images, just in case somewhere implements shari'a law tomorrow? Any such attitude is only counter-productive. Should any Finnish judge overturn an existing law or demand it interpreted in a new way; then we'll have a new situation. However, no proof has been presented that this should be the case, so let us take Finnish law at face value instead of trying to rival professional international lawyers. I see no strong evidence presented to suggest that Finnish copyright experts don't know what they are talking about, and unless such is established, I place my trust in the Finnish experts. They know their own language, so they can read the law, and they no doubt have more insight in Finnish legal traditions than most of us. Valentinian (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a country-specific template (Finland), used for photos taken in Finland by Finns. EU laws are irrelevant, because only some of the Wikimedia-projects are EU-related (edited by EU citizens, written in European languages etc.). Photos with this template are important material for Wikimedia-projects; it would be a disaster if they couldn't be used. --PeeKoo 11:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How long do we have to wait for an adminstrative decision? This debate has been inactive for almost two weeks and the voting has been going on for months. Admins, please end this discussion so we can go back to adding material. --MPorciusCato 13:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the risk of being reverted, I will close this debate as a keep. During the months since it was opened, I have been waiting for comments from representatives from other larger Wikipedia projects, such as the Spanish, Portugese, and others. As there are no comments from users from such countries, it appears that only users from German Wikipedia want this template deleted, leading it to appear that it should be deleted only because they can't be hosted on German Wikipedia. That must be inappropriate.

Since it wasn't deleted, you may, if you want to, add a warning to the template saying that the images can't be hosted on German Wikipedia.

Fred Chess 02:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reopened the deletion request, since this is by no means a Problem of Germany only. As Lupo has nicely listed on User:Lupo/Simple_Photographs, most EU countries do not even make a distinction between simple photographs and photographic works. Thus, such photos will be protected at least in the countries listed as "Normal copyright rules apply", as rule of the shorter term doesn't apply within the EU (see also w:Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection#Copyright restoration). For the remaining countries where it is not the case that "Normal copyright rules apply": We have court decisions refering to an EU-wide, uniform demarcation not only in Germany, but also in Austria. I do not see any indication for why it wouldn't apply to other countries, uniformly, too. --rtc 19:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you beating a dead horse? You have already brought out all your arguments, and lost. --MPorciusCato 10:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not "lost". The discussion will go on until you will see, or perhaps you won't see. But the pictures will be deleted, there can be no doubt about that. --rtc 16:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was establsihed in the discussion that the law of Germany or that of Bambustan are irrelevant. The laws of Austria or France or whatever are irrelevant as well. The only other country, whose law matters, is the US, and that discussion is on-going and still open. Samulili 18:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are absolutely not irrelevant. Pictures must be free to use everywhere, with only casual exceptions permitted. However, these pictures are not free in the whole of Europe. --18:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Why this is needed again? Take it to the village pump instead of pushing your original research here, PD-Sweden, Italy, Poland and Denmark etc..? --Pudeo 18:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Finnish military photos should definately be deleted, but this is a valid license template. --Jannex 10:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As this senseless discussion has apparently started and will not be ended immediately, as it rightly should be, I will reiterate my position: The copyright harmonization directive rtc brings out does not apply to the photos considered here. This template considers photos which are not "author's own intellectual creation[[s]] reflecting his personality", so they are covered by a related right, not copyright. (In Finnish law, this related right is equated with copyright but has a different term.) The German courts demarcate the level of intellectual creation differently from Finland and there is no Union-level jurisprudence. The views of German or Austrian courts do not bind Finnish courts or the courts of European Union. The final say on whether Finnish Copyright law provides photos with the protection required by the Copyright directive rests with the Court of European Communities. Before that court issues judgement, nobody knows. However, we should not be overcautious. --MPorciusCato 13:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right (though I don't think so). Yet, as Lupo has nicely listed on User:Lupo/Simple_Photographs, most EU countries do not even make a distinction between simple photographs and photographic works. Thus, such photos will be protected at least in the countries listed as "Normal copyright rules apply", as rule of the shorter term doesn't apply within the EU (see also w:Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection#Copyright restoration), even if the pictures were PD in Finland (which they are not). --rtc 16:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are simple photographs? They are photographs which are not works. Surely countries which do not recognize simple photographs recognize that not all photographs are works? Those countries which do not recognize simple photographs just don't give simple photographs any protection (droits voisins). And yes, these images are PD in Finland. Before you claim otherwise, why don't you read some literature on Finnish copright. I personally recommend "Tekijänoikeus ja lähioikeudet" (Copyright and related rights) by Pirkko-Liisa Haarmann, "Oikeus valokuvaan" (Rights to a photograph) by Rainer Oesch and statements by the Finnish Copyright Council ("Tekijänoikeusneuvosto]"). Samulili 12:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what I wrote. Yes, countries listed as "Normal copyright rules apply" recognize that all photographs are works. --rtc 17:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. "Normal copyright rules apply" means for most countries that "probably threshold of originality applies". Thuresson 18:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the implmentation of the EU directive has set the uniform demarcation for threshold of originality such that originality is sufficient as soon as the photographer expresses his personality, for example by choosing the camera position and by choosing the moment of pressing the button deliberately. Only technical photos (mugshots), satellite photos and photos shot accidentally fall below this threshold. --rtc 19:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only do you contradict yourself in your two previous comments ("all photographs are works" vs. "technical photos are not works"), you also set condition (camera position, pressing moment) which are not from the directive on which you build your case. Samulili 19:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "all photographs are works" was wrong, I checked it again. You were right about that. The condition is well from the directive: "it is necessary to define the level of originality required in this Directive; whereas a photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account; whereas the protection of other photographs should be left to national law;"[1] emphasized by me, "2. Das Berufungsgericht hat es abgelehnt, einen Urheberrechtsschutz der Anzeigen aus den verwendeten Fotos herzuleiten. Es ist dabei davon ausgegangen, daß den Fotos urheberrechtlicher Schutz als Lichtbildwerken im Sinne des § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 5 UrhG nur zukommen könne, wenn sie eine eigenschöpferische Prägung und Gestaltung aufwiesen. Bei einem Gesamtvergleich mit den vorbestehenden Gestaltungen müßten sich schöpferische Eigentümlichkeiten ergeben, die über das Handwerksmäßige und Durchschnittliche deutlich hinausragten. In den Fotos offenbare sich jedoch kein besonderes fotografisches Können. Bei dieser Beurteilung ist das Berufungsgericht von Anforderungen an die Schutzfähigkeit von Fotografien ausgegangen, die jedenfalls seit dem 1. Juli 1995 nicht mehr gelten, d.h. dem Zeitpunkt, in dem die Richtlinie 93/98/EWG des Rates zur Harmonisierung der Schutzdauer des Urheberrechts und bestimmter verwandter Schutzrechte vom 29. Oktober 1993 (ABl. Nr. L 290/9) nach ihrem Art. 13 Abs. 1 umzusetzen war und auch durch das Dritte Gesetz zur Änderung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes vom 23. Juni 1995 (BGBl. I S. 842) umgesetzt worden ist (Art. 3 Abs. 2 des 3. UrhG-ÄndG). Nach Art. 6 der Richtlinie sollen Fotografien geschützt werden, wenn sie individuelle Werke in dem Sinne darstellen, daß sie das Ergebnis der eigenen geistigen Schöpfung ihres Urhebers sind (vgl. dazu auch Erwägungsgrund 17 der Richtlinie). Eines besonderen Maßes an schöpferischer Gestaltung bedarf es danach für den Schutz als Lichtbildwerk nicht (vgl. Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 2. Aufl., § 2 Rdn. 33, 179; Schricker/Vogel aaO § 72 Rdn. 21; Nordemann/Vinck in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 9. Aufl., § 2 Rdn. 74; Hertin ebd. § 72 Rdn. 2; Heitland, Der Schutz der Fotografie im Urheberrecht Deutschlands, Frankreichs und der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, 1995, S. 60 ff.; Platena, Das Lichtbild im Urheberrecht, 1998, S. 233 ff.; A. Nordemann/Mielke, ZUM 1996, 214, 216)."[2] (emphasized by me), "Fromm/Nordemann (Urheberrecht 9 § 2 dUrhG Rz 74; ihm folgend Ciresa, Österreichisches Urheberrecht, § 3 Rz 7) halten nach Umsetzung der Schutzdauer-RL [that means 93/98/EWG (rtc)] als Lichtbildwerke alle Fotos für geschützt, die einem bestimmten Fotografen in dem Sinne persönlich zugerechnet werden können, dass sich sagen lässt, ein anderer Fotograf hätte möglicherweise das Foto anders gestaltet, also den Blickwinkel, den Ausschnitt oder die Beleuchtung anders gewählt, einen anderen Geschehensmoment festgehalten, die abgebildeten Personen anders gruppiert usw (zu den einzelnen Gestaltungsmitteln einer Fotografie im Detail siehe Nordemann, Die künstlerische Fotografie als urheberrechtlich geschütztes Werk 135 ff). Nach Fromm/Nordemann (aaO) werde sich das auch für Amateurfotos und Schnappschüsse fast stets feststellen lassen. Für den einfachen Lichtbildschutz verblieben demnach (von Zufallsfotos infolge eines versehentlichen Auslösens der Kamera abgesehen) nur technische Fotos, bei denen jeder Fotograf mit denselben Fähigkeiten und Kenntnissen dasselbe Ergebnis, nämlich eine technisch einwandfreie Wiedergabe, erzielen müsse (also etwa Reproduktionen von Gemälden, Fotos von Maschinen, Fotos für die Verbrecherkartei, kartografische Luftaufnahmen und - im Regelfall - Passbilder aus Fotoautomaten)."[3] (emphasized by me). --rtc 19:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks like that those who want to delete the template don’t know much about the Finnish Copyright Law. As far as I know, at least most of the photographs using Template:PD-Finland50 are PD in Finland. – Nysalor 13:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The binding interpretation of the finnish Copyright law changed substantially when the EU directive was implemented and came into effect. Courts, experts, copyright offices have a very hard time to see that, even in Germany, and you see many mistaken incorrect claims, based on the old understanding fo the law from the time before the directive. Many have not yet noticed that something was changed substantially. But the Federal Court of Justice of Germany and several Austrian courts eventually made very clear and unambiguous statements about this EU-wide unified demarcation. See my post above. Please do not ignore the facts and please do not believe some minor courts, copyright experts or copyright offices that are still speading false pre-directive information because of unawareness of the EU directive's effect. Please point any copyright expert, any copyright office and anyone else who still holds the incorrect old position in some EU country to the ruling of the Federal Court of Justice of Germany and the Austrian OGH and point out to them the general applicability of the reasoning of this ruling to all of Europe. --rtc 01:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, you have a stricter interpretetation of the threshold of originality than the rest of us. The German courts agree with you. Finnish law does not, so you are claiming that the Finnish law violates the Union directive. However, the German rulings do not have any effect on Union law. Only the rulings of the Court of European Communities are Union-level prejudicates. In fact, in the Finnish law, a foreign judgement on a related case is considered only tertiary source of law (acts, Union regulations, decrees and custom of the country are primary sources, directives, prejudicates and legislative documents secondary). As such, a German court opinion is at par with Finnish legal literature and can be only used as help on reasoning (see fi:oikeuslähde). Forcing German rulings on the whole Union is not acceptable. --MPorciusCato 05:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a German ruling forced on the Union, it is a EU directive. What I say is not "a interpretation" of threshold of originality, it is the actual threshold of originality for all EU countries. I am not claiming that the Finnish law violates the Union directive. The Finnish law is completely correct, and it is the same about threshold of originality as Germany or any other EU country. If the Finnish legal literature is still based on Pre-Directive-Opinions, please contact the respective authors immediately and point out to them their mistake. --rtc 19:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give me an extract from the directive saying what exactly is the threshold of originality according to this directive? I could find nothing about technical photos or like, at least from the Finnish translation. – Nysalor 20:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"(17) Whereas the protection of photographs in the Member States is the subject of varying regimes; whereas in order to achieve a sufficient harmonization of the term of protection of photographic works, in particular of those which, due to their artistic or professional character, are of importance within the internal market, it is necessary to define the level of originality required in this Directive; whereas a photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account; whereas the protection of other photographs should be left to national law;" (emphasized by me) Please see my posting 19:59, 7 May 2007 above for further discussion of the effect of this definition, as recognized by several european copyright scholars, and adopted by German and Austrian courts. Technical photography are not covered by the convention, but are "left to national law", and of course this tag is valid for technical photography. However, hardly any picture at all is technical photography, and, in fact, all photos tagged with this template are not technical in this sense. Technical photography is only given if the content, angle etc. of the photo is completely determined by the task, such that the photo is not "reflecting [the] personality" of the photographer anymore. Think of reproduction photography (this photos which would fall under Template:PD-Art in the US), think about mugshots, about satellite photos, about the usual case of photo booth photos. --rtc 21:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think ”reflecting his personality” is a key for this case. The Finnish Copyright Council (Tekijänoikeusneuvosto) says that the photo Paavo Nurmi sytyttää olympiatulen 1952 “doesn’t especially express the original and personal contribution from the person taken the photograph, and thus it can not be considered a photographic work protected by TekijäL 1 §” [translated and emphasized by me]. On my opinion, it means about the same than “reflecting his personality”. The statement isn’t based on “other criteria such as merit or purpose”: The Finnish Copyright Council especially states that it’s just a photo regardless of the fact that it’s historically important and the only photo taken when Paavo Nurmi lit the Olympic Flame.
By the way, can you find any personality or creativity from the photo? If I had been there in 1952, could I have taken a photo quite similar to that photo? Finally, I must say that my German is poor – maybe a bit better than your Finnish, though :) –, and I can’t read the German and Austrian texts you gave. – Nysalor 23:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For "reflecting [the] personality" of the photographer or a photo being his "original and personal contribution", nothing is needed except that a different photographer could in principle have shot the photo differently, and that is well the case here. That is what the texts say about the EU directive, clearly and unambigously, and based on several law scholars. The copyright council is not aware of that and should be contacted immediately about it, pointing out the German and Austrian cases as soon as possible. Please do, since you are right that I can't write finnish. --rtc 00:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every writing, drawing or photo made by a human being isn’t a work, that’s the Finnish point of view. As far as I know, “reflecting [the] personality” doesn’t mean ‘made by a human being’, it needs some personality in a photo. If the directive would really mean that every photo taken by a human being is a work, I think it would be mentioned clearly. In Germany and Austria, this may be understood in a other way than in Finland or in Sweden or Denmark, and you should accept this or give more convincing evidence. I rather trust the Finnish Copyright Council with excellent specialists than in the pseudonym Rtc or German texts I can’t understand – especially concerning the Finnish PD. – Nysalor 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is exactly the same in Germany as it is in Finland. Not every photo made by a human being is protected, only if a different photographer could in principle have shot the photo differently. This is not the opinion of a user with the pseudonym Rtc, but the result of research by reputable scholars of european law, which is completely correct, which the courts refer to, and who certainly have more background knowledge about the EU directive than the Finnish copyright council, which still bases its opinion on the situation before the directive and didn't notice something had changed. You can ignore the facts, but that won't change them. --rtc 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven’t read those “the result of research by reputable scholars [names?] of european law”, and I know nothing about their background. We follow the Finnish Law in Finland, not statements from German or Austrian courts. Please inform the European Commission, if you think that Finland doesn’t follow the directive. – Nysalor 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finland follows the directive and has inplemented it correctly; it is just the copyright council that has not yet noticed the change. --rtc 23:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the statement of the FCC is based on the present Finnish Law! According to the Finnish Law, a photo is protected for 50 years from the time of creation (TekijäL 49 a §). Those photos don’t “especially express the original and personal contribution”, and if other person took them in the same situation, they would be quite similar. Paavo Nurmi sytyttää olympiatulen 1952 don’t reflect the personality of the photographer. That’s what the FCC states, and there is no contradiction between this statement and the directive. The directive can undoubtedly be interpreted in many ways. – Nysalor 00:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The law in Finland is exactly the same as in Germany in that regard since the implementation of the EU directive. The Olympia photo well reflects the personality of the photographer according to the scholar's (Schricker, Loewenheim, Vogel, Nordemann, Vinck, Fromm, Hertin, Heitland, Platena, Mielke, Ciresa) results, the FCC simply is not aware of that and has not noticed yet the effet of the EU directive and the decisions. Make them aware of that. There is no room for interpretation, and anyone going to court and pointing the judge at the German and Austrian court rulings and the scholarship they are based on will be successfull. --rtc 01:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not pretend like you know how Finnish copyright law says or how its interpretation has changed. You already made a fool of yourself in that way when you made bogus claims about old and new Swedish law. And yes, I will believe Finnish experts in the case of a Finnish picture and I don't give a flying about your Deutschland, Deutschland überalles attitude. Samulili 12:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need to know Finnish copyright law to know that they implemented the EU directive and thus the uniform EU demarcation for photographic works. I know of course how its interpretation has changed, because it has changed the same way as in German and any other EU country. You are making yourself a fool because you are ignoring these facts. And you are making yourself even more a fool by argumentation such as your last sentence. In fact, I am arguing pro Finland if I affirm that finnish photographers have the same rights as German ones. I guess if the finnish experts would be pointed out their error and directed at the BGH ruling, they would immediately acklowedge that what I say is true. Unfortunately I don't speak finnish. Perhaps you can write these experts an email. --rtc 19:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said, “even if the pictures were PD in Finland (which they are not)”. I would like to know some reasons why you think the pictures are not PD in Finland, based on the Finnish Law. The threshold of originality may be different in Finland compared to Germany or Austria, but there is no point in claiming that the German or Austrian one would surely be the interpretation of the whole EU. – Nysalor 20:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before the directive, the threshold of originality in Germany/Austria was the similar to what people here mistakenly claim still to be valid in Finland (basically, that artistic value or merit are necessary for protection as a photographic work). The court rulings argued explicitly that this has changed because of the implementation of the directive and its uniform demarcation criteria. There is no difference in theshold of originality for photos anymore within the EU, since the Directive explicitly required a uniform level to be implemented. Do you see my posting above with lots of text in bold letters, 19:59, 7 May 2007? Please read it. I do not wish to repeat myself again. --rtc 21:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The directive was given in 1993, and the Finnish Copyright Council gave their own statement in 2003. No “artistic value or merit” is taken into account in their statement. – Nysalor 23:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then the copyright council is wrong, and I guess that is so, because it does not yet know the German and Austrian court decisions and the research they are based on, and still bases its opinion on the pre-directive situation. We had that in Germany too, even by courts, until the federal court corrected them. Please write to the copyright council and point out their error to them as soon as possible, referring them to the rulings I cited. I think this is important so they can correct their error soon and noone gets successfully sued who based its decision on the copyright councils incorrect example. It would be a great loss of prestige for the council... --rtc 00:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we think that German and Austrian courts would be right and the Finnish Copyright Council wrong? The FCC has surely the best specialists of copyright in Finland. If you would like to contact the FCC, you can find their contact information here. I’m sure they understand English. – Nysalor 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the German aud Austrian courts explicitly discuss the problem concerning the effect of the implementation of the EU directive, which the Finnish copyright council seems not to be aware of it at all. FCC has not more authority than any other person in the world, and is hence as fallible as anyone else. It is not an authority, it is merely an institution. I am sorry, I cannot speak Finnish, and I would need that to cite the correct places in their publications etc. I again beg you to do it. There is nothing to loose for you. Are you afraid of the truth? Why do you look away and close your eyes? Test your position for correctness and write them an email! If you are right, that shouldn't be a problem for you. --rtc 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the German and Austrian courts only interpret what they think the directive means: there is no “only if a different photographer could in principle have shot the photo differently” in the directive. It’s just their opinion, if they think so which I don’t know for sure because of my bad German. “Are you afraid of the truth?” – I think I can ignore irrelevant questions like that. If you like, you can send an email to the FCC, but I’m not going to tell them what an anonymous (German?) person claims about the Finnish PD. If you can convince them, I will gladly change my opinion to delete. Meanwhile, I trust the FCC. – Nysalor 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is ridiculous to claim that the careful judgement of the German court, adopted several times by Austrian courts, and backed by reputable law scholars and real arguments, is "just their opinion". You know that I have no chance to do this given that all sources are in Finish. It is dishonest und irrational to deny your help to find out more about the issue; and it is a crime against reason and the autonomy of the individual to trust a state institution or any other alleged authority (be it scientific, religious or social) instead of questioning and criticizing the correctness of what it says. The question "Are you afraid of the truth" is a very relevant one. You do not refer to what I say, you can refer to the German and Austrian court decisions I cited above. --rtc 23:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only you tell me that the judgement of the German court is “careful”. Concerning the Finnish PD, I trust more in the Finnish copyright experts. I’m not a copyright expert, so I have to consult an institution, and the FCC looks like reliable, much more reliable than German statements I can’t read. In addition, the facts you have told me about the interpretation of personality by German and Austrian courts look like quite questionable and problematic. – Nysalor 00:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any matter of public concern, trust is a crime, and there is no such thing as "realibility" (or "authority", which is a different word for that). Please ask the FCC what they think about the issue. Even if you fallaciously trust in their erroneous statements, that does not imply that you must not make them aware of the German/Austrian court rulings. --rtc 01:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this discussion which is on and on about the scope of photographic works and simple photographs respective ist very exhausting. Even if rtc is wrong we have a situation where pictures are free in some countries because they use a higher treshold of originality approach while the same pictures are not free in other jurisdictions because of a lower treshold of originality limit. We have to make a decision considering the concurring regulations. Usually we require a picture to be free in the country of origin and in the US.--Wiggum 13:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is crucial guideline we need to follow in this case also. We have a warning in the template to not use it in Germany already. I don't really see why this original research of an EU directive should be pushed here. But, if copyright paranoia wins in Commons, can those images be moved to Finnish or English Wikipedia, so the work that lasted for years won't be for nothing? As far as I remember, when the Italian template was removed, all the work was wasted, which these people seem to aim for. --Pudeo 14:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what it says in the policies, yes. But we infact have an ongoing discussion regarding a) whether we actually follow that rule (as there are tens of approved templates that break it) and b) whether we ought to follow it. Samulili 13:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm addressing Wiggum and Lupo. If the images must be public domain in the US, they should comply with certain formalities (such as being published with a copyright note). Except if the w:Uruguay Round Agreements Act applies, which it does if a works was still covered by copyright or neighbouring rights in its source country on January 1, 1996. However, it has effectively been proven in this discussion that a wide number of photographs are not subject to the pma 70 copyright, but to a 50 years after being created, whereafter they enter the public domain in its country of origin, Finland. So if an image was created before January 1, 1946, its copyright would have expired in Finland by January 1, 1996, and hence its copyright would never be restored in the US. / Fred Chess 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been proven that a wide number of photographs are not subject to the 70 pma copyright. The contrary is the case, as far as it seems, except a very narrow range of photos, every photo is now protected by 70 pma. --rtc 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment After people have refused to do so, I have myself taken the initiative to write an email to Niklas Bruun about the issue. Please do not complain that I am not 'neutral' enough to do this. You had the opportunity to do it yourself. --rtc 23:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“You know that I have no chance to do this given that all sources are in Finish. It is dishonest und irrational...” -- rtc. Somehow your lame excuse did not stop you from writing the same letter to someone else. That's dishonest and irrational. Samulili 13:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. I have no idea about Finnish at all, and had to write about a text which I do not understand at all and for which I can only guess what it says. --rtc 21:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it matters what you say, you are truely a distruptive troll with 14 bans in the German Wikipedia [4]. Then moved to Commons, eh? So much for the letters.. --Pudeo 08:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said: “Rtc was blocked on de.wikipedia.org once for participating in an edit war, every other block was a misunderstanding or at the request of Rtc.” --Polarlys 21:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Could we have an administrative decision on this matter? The discussion has died out and it is unlikely that any new points will be raised. In case that the template is deleted, could we have a grace-period of a couple of days to back up the images and their descriptions for use in Finland, where the use of these images is considered legal. In any case, I believe that Fi-Wikipedia will be using these images regardless of Commons decision, waiting for an order by the Foundation to remove the content. --MPorciusCato 09:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This and similar "discussions" with arguments going on ad nauseam from certain zealous parties is one of the chief causes I lost faith in the project and opted to remove myself via self requested ban. Now to my point, please do keep the template and files where it is correctly used. Speculation that the project may or not be harmed by keeping files under said license amounts to nothing but copyright hysteria from my point of view. Ultimately, what's the point of the Wikipedia project at any rate as human civilization might end via any means any moment now or at some distant point in the future... Hope you got my somewhat off-topic point. Scoo/85.131.31.4 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I understand the need to be careful in copyright issues. But the law is clear on this matter and in all other instances the use of Finnish photgraphy in the ways that the law allows is commonplace and indiscriminate. I do not see why Wikimedia should selfrestrict itself from a use that no other media worries about. Because of the fear that maybe someday thorugh some weird loophole in a foreign law someone might maybe consider Wikimedia to be infringing on copyrights? Well if that happens, let's take them away then. I suspect that it's never going to happen because in that case the use of these photos in all literature and other medias would instantly become such a huge problem that a law or a decree would be given to extend the right to use them again. Until such time we should be happy that the Finnish law allows the use of these photos and that, as any other media everywhere does, so can Wikimedia us them for its noble purposes. Please do not delete important historical pictures due to legalist hysteria that is not founded on any precedent in the case of these photos that are explicitely pronounced usable in the law. --Tungsten 08:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment (and opinion: Keep) Just wanting to post what Thuresson posted at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Sweden-photo "*This deletion request is based on EU Council Directive 93/98/EEC. However, that directive was repealed in 2006 and replaced with Directive 2006/116/EC which states about photographs that are not works: "The protection of other photographs should be left to national law." --Pudeo 22:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course the restriction of other photographs is left to national law. It has been that way with 93/98/EEC; and nothing at all changed here. It has nothing at all to do with my argument! Please stop using the Chewbacca defense. --rtc 23:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in which way exactly do your blunt "shoot first, ask questions later" (actually more along the lines of "delete now before we see any court case pertaining to Finland that might change status quo") differ? 85.131.26.46 17:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per N and ThePeter M@rcin Suwalczan [talk] 14:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The whole discussion about PD-Finland-50, PD-Dennmark, and PD-Sweden is useless for obvious reason, that we all have to respect the regulations of Finnish, Swedish or Dannish law, and the only valid interpretation is F, S. or D. court interpretation of common law, not private German opinions is (or even verdicts of German Courts - there are suitable only on the territory of FRG, not abroad. Is anyone (brave Viking) in whole Scandinavia to conclude and close these discusssions or there will be disputed without conclusion to the end of the world ;) Freedom First - every limitation has to be justify in detail. --Andros64 10:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as laws of Germany does not apply for Finland. Copyright law has not been changed. Make a new discussion when the law gets changed. --|EPO| da: 00:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-Finland50&oldid=71024739"