Template talk:Soprintendenza

Non-copyright restrictions are not relevant for Wikimedia

Regarding this template, I don't see why it includes the statement "Reproductions of Italian works classified as "cultural goods" may only be displayed on the Italian Wikipedia using the appropriate copyright tag under its Exemption Doctrine Policy. This requires that they be locally uploaded, low resolution, and must have a rationale for their use. The full-resolution copies on Commons must not be used.". Per Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, Wikimedia considers only copyright restrictions as relevant and this is a non-copyright restriction (template text: "These restrictions are independent of the copyright status of the depicted work."). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Like {{Personality rights}}, {{Trademarked}}, {{Insignia}} and so on this is an advice for a third party (read reusers outside Wikimedia projects) or for particular Wikipedia users (in this case, it.wiki), not for Commons users. It's a courtesy for them; I believe it's our mission to inform reusers and also give information not strictly necessary to Commons users.--Trixt (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I see, but I think the information is incorrect. These images may be actually used freely by the Italian Wikipedia, because according to Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, Wikimedia doesn't care about non-copyright limitations. See also the referenced mail.[1]: "Some media may be subject to restrictions other than copyright in some jurisdictions, but are still considered free work." --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but keep in mind that that mailing list message concerns content hosts on Wikimedia servers, it doesn't count on who upload the file. So, if you are not an Italian citizen you can upload these kind of image without problem, but if you are an Italian citizen you shouldn't upload them. Further, this tag reports the actual situation on it.wiki (see Italian Wikipedia policy on images in it:WP:ARTE; if you don't understand Italian and an automatic translator doesn't help, I can help). If in the future there'll be some changes there, we'll be glad to report here. Actually, on it.wiki the decision of using low resolution images of works of art keeped by Italian State is due to legal threats by Uffizi and following agreements with some soprintendenze (Rome, in particular).--Trixt (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

@Elassar: If you don't agree with this policy of it.wp you are welcome to come to it.wp and propose a change, but it would make no sense to just remove here on Commons any information about the policy of it.wp without actually changing it. --Jaqen (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I posted a message to the Italian Wikipedia, where users may discuss this. I'm not Italian citizen and rarely edit articles related to Italian cultural heritage, so I don't care so much. I just want to understand it so that I may see whether it was ok to remove such a provision from Template:SpomenikSVN, modelled after this template. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if in Slovenia there is a law similar to the Italian one, it may be a good idea to leave the template there as a disclaimer and to warn Slovenian citizens and even to lift wikipedia from the possibility of any crime by association. Conversely, if you have no such law, delete the template. --Noieraieri (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There is such a law and the template is informative, so this tag template:SpomenikSVN here in the Commons should remain. I don't think, however, that the Slovenian Wikipedia has to limit itself only to low-res photos of cultural monuments (except those that are copyrighted yet), because the law is not about copyright. Anyway, this talk not concerning Template:Soprintendenza should be held elsewhere. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If sl.wiki users uploading high-res photos are at risk of being sued, the template should remain independent of whether it is about copyright. (Admins or WMI chapter heads also risk being sued for those users' actions, since real-life bureaucrats are fine with picking a random target for lawsuits). Perhaps it's better than it.wiki and they can get by until they actually receive legal threats, which is what happened in Italy. Perhaps it's worse than it.wiki and they risk a lawsuit even with low-res photos. Can you make a summary of the sl.wiki village pump discussion? I'm only cs-1 so I cannot do much else than find it and add a link here. :) Balabiot (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, regarding Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, it's absolutely not true that Wikimedia doesn't care about non-copyright limitations. What's written there is (verbatim) that "Wikimedia's projects and many reusers of their content enjoy a strong position under law with respect to most of these non-copyright restrictions" (emphasis mine). Most, but not necessarily all. And a strong position, but not necessarily a clearance. For example in Italy reusers should check if they can even use the low-res versions of the photos, because not everyone can. So it.wiki does enjoy a strong position in this respect. Balabiot (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It's just a general discussion on where to put the limits regarding the freedom of panorama and de minimis. Whether particular files should be kept in Commons or not - which actually should take place at appropriate Deletion review discussions. The position held by the majority of users (as I have read it from the discussion) is that we should avoid copyright and non-copyright paranoia regarding the FOP. There was no legal threat for now. The Slovenian Wikipedia for now seems to be far from limiting itself to low-res photos and to say frankly, there is even no incentive evident (besides mine) to respect the Wikimedia Licensing policy.

What I had in mind is: "However, non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia,[1] and the licensing policies are accordingly limited to regulating copyright related obligations." (emphasis mine) In addition, the above-referenced Wikimedia policy mentions only "limitations of copyright law" in the definition of EDP. As I understand it, this means that as far as Wikimedia is concerned, images may be freely uploaded despite non-copyright limitations. If this is not so, it should be written more clearly here in Commons and in the Wikimedia Licensing policy. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. Yes, it is correct that images as far as Wikimedia is concerned may be freely uploaded despite non-copyright limitations, but IMHO that's no different from how Wikimedia lets individual projects host copyrighted content for fair use. But on top of this general permission, Wikimedia lets individual projects apply further restrictions. The aim of those restriction is to limit the user's liability, and in this respect copyright law is not special. Although licensing policy only mentions copyright law, IMHO that's a limitation in the wording of the policy, and a clarification would indeed be welcome.

When such works are hosted on Commons, I'm not sure how this relates to House rules, since this is really a law rather than a regulation of the museum. I think only an expert in international law could give a satisfactory answer. The uploader most likely will be liable and Italian users should err on the safe side and avoid such uploads. It definitely should be mentioned in Commons:Non-copyright restrictions and Commons:Image casebook. Balabiot (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)