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


 * ...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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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)