Template talk:PD-NorwayGov

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Fairytale Trash Questionmark No.svg

This template was nominated for deletion on 30 June 2007 but was kept.
The deletion debate is here. Please consider that decision before you re-nominate it.


العربية | বাংলা | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | +/−

Changes 2011-12-09[edit]

Made some changes [1] to use a text somewhat closer to the actual words of Åndsverksloven §9. The original text indicated a much broader scope than given by the law itself. Jeblad (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(Norwegian / Norsk bokmål) Interpretation of the law paragraph / Dekoding av lovparagrafen[edit]

This is my interpretation of the law paragraph. Comments and disagreements on how to split the commas?

Første ledd av § 9:

Lover, forskrifter, rettsavgjørelser og andre vedtak av offentlig myndighet er uten vern etter denne lov. Det samme gjelder forslag, utredninger og andre uttalelser som gjelder offentlig myndighetsutøvelse, og er avgitt av offentlig myndighet, offentlig oppnevnt råd eller utvalg, eller utgitt av det offentlige. Likeledes er offisielle oversettelser av slike tekster uten vern etter denne lov.

Første punktum:

Lover av offentlig myndighet er uten vern etter denne lov.
Forskrifter
Rettsavgjørelser
Andre vedtak

Andre punktum, alternativ 1:

Det samme gjelder forslag som gjelder offentlig myndighetsutøvelse, og er avgitt av offentlig myndighet.
utredninger offentlig oppnevnt råd eller utvalg.
andre uttalelser utgitt av det offentlige.

Andre punktum, alternativ 2:

Det samme gjelder forslag ... avgitt av offentlig myndighet.
utredninger offentlig oppnevnt råd eller utvalg.
andre uttalelser som gjelder offentlig myndighetsutøvelse, og er utgitt av det offentlige.

Andre ledd av § 9:

Åndsverk som ikke er frembrakt særskilt til bruk i dokumenter som nevnt i første ledd, og som det siteres fra eller som gjengis i særskilt vedlegg, omfattes ikke av denne bestemmelse. Første ledd gjelder heller ikke lyrikk, musikkverk eller kunstverk.

Merk spesifikt at ifølge andre ledd gjelder § 9 ikke lyrikk, musikkverk eller kunstverk, selv om dette er i et dokument som ellers er uten opphavsrettslig beskyttelse (ifølge første ledd).

For alle andre åndsverk må det være laget spesifikt for et dokument som er nevnt i første ledd, og verket må ikke være i et sitat eller i et vedlegg.

-Laniala (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Erroneous english translation[edit]

The phrase "Intellectual works" is much broader than "Åndsverk" and imply the english "intellectual property". The law says in §1 "litterære, vitenskapelige eller kunstneriske verk" [2] and this translates to "literary, scientific or artistic works". This is also what the English unofficial translation uses.[3] Jeblad (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that it has too broad a scope, but on the other hand the text that was there implied that "åndsverk" was the equivalent to only "literary, scientific or artistic works" which, unless you actually look at § 1, is too narrow in my opinion. Not even dictionaries agree how to translate this: [4] [5] [6]
In Norwegian § 1 says
«Med åndsverk forståes i denne lov litterære, vitenskapelige eller kunstneriske verk av enhver art og uansett uttrykksmåte og uttrykksform, så som [...]»
I feel that the English (unofficial) translation of this (in the PDF) is is not sufficient to get the feel that the whole law text actually includes all kind of paintings, drawings, graphic and similar pictorial works, and all kind of photographs. Photographs are in the law text divided into non-artistic photographs and artistic photographs and treated differently. However, as said, with the English text only mentioning "artistic works" it might be taken as the law does not hold for the non-artistic photographs, when it in fact does, they are just treated differently.
Since the second section of § 9 in the original Norwegian version says "åndsverk", it means that the exemption of what is not public domain also applies to non-artistic photographs (also specified in § 43 a). -Laniala (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The use of "intellectual works" imply "intellectual properties" and this is extremely broad. It simply isn't enough that someone "feel" this is correct, its not correct, its an error. Jeblad (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, well, according to the dictionaries I listed 1.5 of them tells me I'm right. And 1 tells me I'm wrong, and what was there was right.
The first dictionary I listed, that gives the most text, translate it as "work of the intellect" or "creative work of the mind", and refer to "åndsprodukt" (which that dictionary translates as "intellectual property") for reference.
The second one translate it as "literary and artistic work"
The thrid one translate it as "intellectual work"
So as said, I agree that "intellectual work" implies too much, but I also think that only "literary, scientific or artistic works" (which the template had before) implies too little. Do you agree to this, so we maybe can work from there? If not, would you be able to explain why you think writing only "literary, scientific or artistic works" is sufficient?
(Maybe we should take this to no:Tinget? Don't think many reads this.) -Laniala (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Intellectual work (or property) contains "Åndsverk", while Åndsverk is only a subset of all intellectual works. A patent is a intellectual property, but its not covered by "Åndsverksloven". Whats covered is what you may call the artistic parts of an intellectual work, but that to is partly to broad and also partly to limited. Some concepts can not be accurately described as simple 1-to-1 translations, just accept it and everything will be so much easier. Jeblad (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Public domain[edit]

It should also be mentioned that the English public domain is much broader than whats generally permitted by Åndsverksloven. Usually reuse must still be a faithful reproduction, honor the work and credit the authors. Its often said that it is the authors exclusive right to give provisions on use of the work that is relinquished, and that is somewhat limited compared to the English public domain. Jeblad (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)