[Wiki Loves Monuments] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?
jane023 at gmail.com
Sun Mar 3 10:27:08 UTC 2013
I understand now that the whole thing boils down to "Are such images
at risk to be deleted?", whereby the answer is not based so much on
clarity of international copyright law as it is on the willingness of
the Wikimedia Commons community to accept the risk of a civic case
against any individual in that community.
My feeling is that until there is consensus within the Wikimedia
Commons (admin) community that no one will be sued for allowing such
photographs to remain there, it is not worth the risk of deletion of
any single photograph uploaded by any volunteer newbie joining in on a
WMNL-sponsored photo contest.
It's sad, but there you have it!
2013/3/2, Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org>:
> While I don't want to go into detail (the links speak for themselves), the
> basic question assumes countries which have Freedom of Panorama.
> For example, the Netherlands has full Freedom of Panorama. However, since
> the servers of the WMF are in the USA and the WMF us a US corporation, the
> question is whether US copyright law would /also/ apply. Because US Freedom
> of Panorama does apply to architecture, but not to sculptures and public
> art. Therefore, under US law, photos of (recent) public sculptures would
> not be free.
> However, this even gets more complicated: this is not about what is /our/
> opinion, but what does the Wikimedia Commons community think about it. Are
> such images at risk to be deleted?
> 2013/3/2 Jane Darnell <jane023 at gmail.com>
>> Thanks for your quick responses! I know this is probably new for both
>> of you (it was new for me), but the current discussion implies that
>> lots of images of 3-D objects by Dutch creators that have been out on
>> Commons for years are now threatened to be taken down. This includes
>> all artworks created less than 90 years ago, so it includes all WWII
>> monuments. For more information see this:
>> This is a similar issue as the takedowns that have already started for
>> 2-dimensional artworks by Dutch creators who died 70+ years ago. An
>> example are the artworks by Leo Gestel, who died in 1941, but only
>> those works he created before 1923 are allowed on Commons. Even though
>> in the Netherlands all of his work has fallen into the public domain,
>> the images are stored on servers in the US and therefore fall under US
>> copyright restrictions.
>> This means that by definition, WWII monuments that are not simply text
>> and include some sculpture or other artwork, are no longer eligible
>> for Commons. My gut feeling is that these monuments are public domain,
>> because it seems to me that a sculpture created for a European
>> municipality in a specific location within that municipality to honor
>> an event within that municipality could not possibly fit the
>> description "first published in the US in year X". I was hoping for
>> some quick explanation I could reuse for the Dutch National Committee,
>> but I guess this is all still new for Wikipedians in general.
>> Thanks in any case for your time!
>> 2013/3/2, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers at gmail.com>:
>> > I don't know about the DMCA take down notice in question, but you need
>> > to
>> > remember that Europe is a continent with many countries, and FOP is one
>> > the areas that hasn't been harmonised even within the European Union.
>> > I'm
>> > in the UK which does largely have FOP, but only for three dimensional
>> > that are permanently on Public display. The Houseball is definitely
>> > three
>> > dimensional but if it was in the UK I'd be wondering if it permanent or
>> > temporary? For other WWII stuff in the UK a key consideration is
>> > whether
>> > is two or three dimensional - there are some WWII related two d display
>> > boards near me which I would have photographed if they were covered by
>> > My suggestion would be to only go ahead in those countries that have
>> > FOP,
>> > and include a link to the guidelines we have for commons images from
>> > that
>> > country.
>> > WSC
>> > On 2 March 2013 10:53, Jane Darnell <jane023 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Hello,
>> >> WMNL was recently approached for helping start a photo contest for
>> >> WWII monuments. Based on this
>> >> We assumed that these photographs could be used on Wikipedia, but the
>> >> recent discussions about the DMCA takedown notice for this
>> >> 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
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
>> >> WikiLovesMonuments at lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
>> >> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
>> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
>> WikiLovesMonuments at lists.wikimedia.org
More information about the WikiLovesMonuments