Template talk:FoP-Sweden

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

French version[edit]

Hi there ! Salut !

I've noticed some mistakes in the french version. Il y a des fautes dans la version française.

"Un œuvre d'art peut être représentée se elle est placée"... devrait être: Une œuvre d'art peut être représentée si elle est placée...

I don't know how to correct by myself. Je ne sais pas corriger moi-même.

Thanks. Merci.

--Jebulon (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Analysis procedure/results?[edit]

The template states FoP in Sweden is being analyzed. By whom and where is that analysis made? Is there for instance a discussion page on Commons?--LittleGun (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no discussion currently on Commons that I'm aware of (and I probably would be aware). I've heard talk about Wikimedia Foundation Lawyers having the decision translated to English for analysis. I know some people have wanted to wait for the outcome of that, but I don't know if there's been any sort of statement made. Personally, I thought it would be reasonable to wait for the decision to go into effect before proceeding. Today was the last day for appealing the decision, but I don't know if it has been appealed. LX (talk, contribs) 20:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikimedia Sweden decided not to appeal: [1].--LittleGun (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Do you know if there are any statements from lawyers that might be worth waiting for? (Keeping in mind that Wikimedia's lawyers will typically not make public statements describing ongoing or past practices of their client as legally problematic – I think sometimes people forget that the Foundation's lawyers are not independent and impartial legal analysts.) If not, I think it's time to discuss the scope and issues to consider for deletion nominations. COM:VP/C would be the appropriate venue for that. LX (talk, contribs) 17:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe. According to this:[2], a WMF lawyer will participate in upcoming discussions at Wikimedia Commons (posted july 12). I am not sure if that means the lawyer will initiate any talks.--LittleGun (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Subjects out of copyright[edit]

This template has been applied to a number of photographs of buildings and sculpture where freedom of panorama doesn't really apply because the architect and/or artist has been dead for more than 70 years (eg. Mariatorget - Södermalm - Stockholm0309.jpg). In those circumstances the current content of the template is unnecessarily restrictive, and I'm concerned that in the event of the current rather bonkers court resolution being upheld, the presence of this template may trigger a wholly unnecessary deletion. Is there a better template that can be used to clearly indicate the building/sculpture is in the public domain due to the demise of its architect/artist?. Or should I just remove the template with an appropriate comment?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Chris j wood: {{Art Photo}} with the artwork license parameter containing an appropriate PD tag is, I would say, the most appropriate solution. For an example, see the changes I made to File:Djurgårdsbron 070610 Freyja.JPG. Of course, that's a bit of work, and removing the tag from files where it doesn't apply should be fine as well. LX (talk, contribs) 15:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The BUS vs. Wikimedia Sweden verdict applies to artworks only. The FoP regarding buildings have never been contested and probably never will because the swedish copyright lag more unambiguous writing about the right to depict buildings. /ℇsquilo 09:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Rename to Template:NoFoP-Sweden or not?[edit]

By such clause, I would rather believe that FoP usages are banned by Swedish government, because still lack of exemptions in any possible areas. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to rename this template. It is still allowed to publish photos of public art on the internet. The law has not changed. The only thing that has happened is that the district court has decided that photos of public art can not be catalogized in the manner Wikimedia Sweden did on the (now closed) site offentligkonst.se. /ℇsquilo 07:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
If any precautionary measures is to be taken, it would be to remove (or hide) geographical coordinates from all files that use this template. That would make any copyright infringement catalogization impossible. /ℇsquilo 07:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Esquilo: But Swedish government may also issue at least one sanction decision against WMF headquarter, isn't that? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)