Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Denmark50
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- (see also the related debates for Template:PD-Finland50 and Template:PD-Sweden-photo)
w:Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection contained a clause for unifying the demarcation for protection as photographic works (photos are "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", in direct contradiction to this template). There are court decisions in Germany[1] and Austria[2][3][4] that have decided this uniform demarcation to be very low, such that basically only mug shots and reproduction photography, where the outcome is more or less determined by the task, would remain as simple photographs. Even if, for some reason, this uniform demarcation has not been received the same way in Denmark (but I cannot find a court decision contradicting it), the directive would still cause the works to be protected in other EU countries that agree with the German/Austrian interpretation, because the the EU-wide anti-discrimination laws. When Copy-Dan writes that "Since no established legal practice exists in this field, drawing the line between photographic works and photographic images can be difficult"[5], it seems not to have noticed the German and Austrian court cases, and when it writes that a photograph is non-simple "if the image has the necessary independent / artistic merit. In practical terms it will often be taken into account if the person in question had taken a professional education as a photographer and / or if he had this occupation for a living" ([6], p.5), it seems not to have noticed the clause in the EU directive that, since it was implemented, must be taken as the binding interpretation of any remaining unclarity. Please someone who can speak danish write to copy-dan informing them about these mistakes. --rtc 17:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
As we have seen in the PD-Finland50 case, there is some scope in interpreting the "author's own intellectual creation", "personality" etc. Anyhow, I have a strong reservation regarding those "simple photograph" licenses because people don't exactly know about the limitation unless there are some legislative clarifications or exemplary case law. Based on my experience i think that such templates are highly misused and cannot be maintained with reasonable costs. Therefore i think it should be deleted.--Wiggum 18:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"Please someone who can speak danish write to copy-dan informing them about these mistakes." Who sad it is a mistake. Just because a german and austrian decision has been mad doesn't make it law in Denmark. (Last time I checked EU is still a collection of independent states). Just because you want the same rules on copyright in every country and your main goal on Commons apparently is deleting as many photos as possible doesn't make it right. --Broadbeer 21:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not going to waste my time on German law anymore. I've wasted too much of my life on it last time this template was nominated for deletion, and this is turning into a perpetuum mobile. However, I will say publicly that a German judge has no authority outside of his own nation, and rulings by German courts will very likely not be a deciding factor in a Danish court of law, as Danish legal traditions are based on Danish law with inputs from Scandinavian law, Common law and Roman law, in that order (source: Peter Schønning: "Ophavsretten med kommentarer"). But it is kind of interesting to see that the deletionist rampage isn't applied with the same rigour everywhere. We have a ton of images tagged with {{PD-Coa-Germany}}, and they might very well be PD there. but I don't believe for a second that any image using this tag is PD in Denmark or anywhere else where they don't hold any official status. {{PD-art}} images are PD in Germany and the US, but not in many other nations. If the idea is that images on Commons must be free to use for everybody, then these images are disqualified as well. If there is a higher meaning in these deletion nominations, I can't follow it. Valentinian (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Quite outside of the EU regulations, the threshold of originality varies amongst countries, and such "simple photographs" from Denmark are eligible for copyright as "photographic works" in other countries where the threshold of originality is low (such as the U.S.). Therefore, I do not consider such "simple photograph" exceptions useful here at the commons; such photos may be protected only for a short term in Denmark, but may well be works with a long copyright term outside of Denmark. Such images are better hosted at the Danish WP. Lupo 10:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- (On PD-Coa-Germany: COAs in Germany are PD by virtue of having been published in official legislative documents (which is madated by GErmany's administrative laws), and many countries including the U.S. exclude such official legislative documents from copyright. Furthermore, this tag here is not about official works. On PD-Art, please see COM:ART.) Lupo 10:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also see §5(2) of the Berne Convention: copyright in a country "shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work." Lupo 10:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am aware of the laws of both Germany and other countries regarding heraldic images (although I still need to check most of Western Europe [7]), but outside of Germany, these images are merely works of art with no special status, so that must make the actual rendition of an foreign insignia a work of art copyrighted for the life of the author + 70 years. {{PD-USGov}} is a false parallel as it applies solely to works made by the US federal government, it doesn't even apply for the governments of US federal states, so it cannot apply for images produced in Germany. I just find it curious that many of these deletion requests are based on the argument that the image X must be free to use in Germany and Austria = an argument that Wikipedia practice must be harmonized on the most restrictive level, not on the level used in the country of origin. However, if this has become the rule, then said rule must be applied both ways, PD-Coa-Germany is merely a case in point. Regarding the current deletion request, I don't see any reason to add further to what I stated the last time. Have a nice day. Valentinian (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Anyway, since most of these images refer to World War II, this webpage from Denmark's National Museum suggests to me that the rigid standard demanded here is not applied in Denmark. Valentinian (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- First, you brought Germany into this debate, not I. Second, I said nothing about PD-USGov. I was talking about "legislative documents". That's two different issues. Many governments, even where they can hold copyrights, explicitly exclude "legislative documents" and such from copyright. Third, my argument for deletion had nothing to do with either, nor with Germany, nor with Austria, nor with any EU regulation, but with the different thresholds of originality in different countries, which IMO severely limits the usefulness of these "simple photograph" templates. Lupo 22:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Anyway, since most of these images refer to World War II, this webpage from Denmark's National Museum suggests to me that the rigid standard demanded here is not applied in Denmark. Valentinian (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am aware of the laws of both Germany and other countries regarding heraldic images (although I still need to check most of Western Europe [7]), but outside of Germany, these images are merely works of art with no special status, so that must make the actual rendition of an foreign insignia a work of art copyrighted for the life of the author + 70 years. {{PD-USGov}} is a false parallel as it applies solely to works made by the US federal government, it doesn't even apply for the governments of US federal states, so it cannot apply for images produced in Germany. I just find it curious that many of these deletion requests are based on the argument that the image X must be free to use in Germany and Austria = an argument that Wikipedia practice must be harmonized on the most restrictive level, not on the level used in the country of origin. However, if this has become the rule, then said rule must be applied both ways, PD-Coa-Germany is merely a case in point. Regarding the current deletion request, I don't see any reason to add further to what I stated the last time. Have a nice day. Valentinian (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep and for more arguments, see the related discussions regarding Finland and Sweden.
I think it's quite sad the way quotes a Danish document like this: "-- -- a photograph is non-simple 'if the image has the necessary independent / artistic merit. In practical terms it will often be taken into account if the person in question had taken a professional education as a photographer and / or if he had this occupation for a living' ([6], p.5)". So doing Rtc leaves out the next sentence: "but in principle (?) an amateur can also create a photographic work" ("men i princippet kan også en amatør frembringe et fotografisk værk"). Samulili 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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 10:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
kept; as German court has no jurisdiction outside Germany. Danish laws regargarding copyrights have not changed anything regarding photographic images. When the law is changed we can discuss this template. --|EPO| da: 14:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)