Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Freedom of Panorama 2015/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

NoW

Hi! This might be helpful if you want to help Wikipedia. Thierry Caro (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

What happens if a vandal vandalises a page on Wikipedia? You take action or you create awareness so it gets fixed. If a government has the intention to vandalise (like censorship, or other things that directly hurt the mission of Wikipedia), there are no admin buttons to be used. Then the only thing that is possible is creating awareness. And that is the only thing that should be done: providing knowledge. Providing knowledge in the form of articles, but also providing knowledge how Wikipedia works and how quality is secured/arranged.
If Wikipedia gets damaged by a certain law, Wikipedia is no longer neutral, but becomes biased. Then Wikipedia lost.
And by the way, "Please think twice.'" is not enough. Matters like this needs to be thought through much more times.
If we ridiculing a serious treat, then Wikipedia loses. If we do not provide knowledge, Wikipedia gets sacrificed, and its neutrality gets sacrificed. Our only job is to provide knowledge, that is what this project should do as well only. Romaine (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh good grief. As stupid an as contrary to freedom as this new law is, it is not remotely comparable to vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:How many legs does a horse have?. --B (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed it is not comparable: the new law is infinitely worse. At least vandalism we can revert and individual acts of vandalism tend to be localised and the results (thanks to the effort of editors) temporary. The results of the law would be widespread and probably last decades.
Note further that not putting up a banner is just as much an action as it would be to put one up. There is no neutral thing that Wikipedia can do here. We can want to be neutral and that is in itself a good thing, but in this case Wikipedia cannot actually be neutral, no matter the course of action it takes. The banner can go up, as the community wants, and Wikipedia will take a political stand (as it has done before, e.g. the SOPA action) or it can choose not to show a banner, taking a different political stand, hurting itself, and acting against the wishes of the community.
P.S. B, you probably feel very clever with your random WP:acronym link, but it has zero relevance to the discussion. 82.139.82.82 (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding "modern"

Forgive me if this is the wrong place to ask this, or if the answer is out there somewhere and I've missed it, but what is the definition of "modern" buildings in this context? If these restrictions came into force, buildings up to how many years old would be affected? I am particularly interested in this because many of my articles feature images of buildings of various ages. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @Hassocks5489: "Modern" means not recent enough that the copyright has expired based on the locally applicable term of copyright. Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory has a good list. For example, in Germany, it means the life of the author plus 70 years. So if a German architect designs a building and lives for another 20 years (dying in 2035), then 90 years from now (70 years after he died), we can take a photo of his building. --B (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • (Warning: sloppy maths ahead) So assuming the average German notable building architect born in 1885 had a life expectancy of about 60 years and designed his average building when he was about 40, that would mean on average buildings from 1925 would be entering the public domain now. Of course there's a huge spread, but I think ‘modern’ is a strange label for buildings almost a century old. 82.139.82.82 (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
      • "Modern" is good enough. Many buildings get extensions or parts replaced over time. Each of these would have some copyright. And so many modern buildings have no well known architect. Once the architect is dead, the situation actually gets worse: whereas a living architect could give permission for free, once dead their estate is either completely inactive (few of us are important enough to have anyone running our estate after death) or legally obliged to maximise profits. -- Colin°Talk 07:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's useful info. It looks like UK timescales are the same as Germany; so, working on the assumption that those timescales would be adopted if this law comes in, every building would have to be assessed separately based on the date of death of its architect, and presumably if the architect is not known assume that it is still subject to copyright unless it at least "xxx" years old (maybe 150 or more). The point about extensions/alterations also causes problems: e.g. presumably this photo would be affected because the transept structure on the left was added in the 20th century. OK, plenty to ponder ... I may post some more questions if I think of anything pertinent. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 08:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The difficulty of defining 'modern' only adds to the 'minefield' that this proposal represents. Is it obtuse to ask how 'company' ownership of the copyright affects the life+X formula?Pincrete (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point. It prompts me to think about architectural firms. Take Clayton & Black of Brighton. The firm's founders died in 1917 and 1923 respectively; but their firm survived with different partners (and a slightly different name) until c. 1975. Thinking about, for example, 163 North Street, Brighton, which the founders designed jointly in 1904 ... in theory that should be "safe" from the remit of the proposed law, but would we actually need to wait until (say) 70 years after the firm was dissolved?
And another question occurs to me. I suppose the burden of proof would be on the photographer/uploader to prove that the building they have photographed is "out of copyright". Theoretical question: would we have to present evidence on the upload page that the building dates from a certain year and the architect died in a certain year? What would be considered as acceptable evidence?... What a hassle, and very much a "minefield"! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It isn't trivial to figure out architect of an old building. Your only method probably be to check the public records from more than 70 years ago which means spending hours to days in the archive provided you have access. It would be difficult enough that we would just not bother with it. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why this is going to be such a problem. France, Greece, Italy and Ukraine apparently do not currently allow freedom of panorama, yet we have plenty of pictures of modern public buildings from those countries on Wikipedia (for example, Nouveau Stade de Bordeaux, Karaiskakis Stadium, Juventus Stadium and Arena Lviv). Number 57 20:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Number 57 I think with the buildings you link, it is simply the case that nobody has nominated them for deletion yet. I believe if the building design is purely functional (a very standard house design perhaps, or a school based on the same template as every other school built in the 1970s) then it may be ok. Hassocks5489 I believe the burdern of proof always rests with the uploader and the way the proposal is drafted doesn't seem to offer a "I tried but nobody replied" option. So like orphan works for photographs, there may be many buildings for which the copyright owner is unknown, whose estate is unknown or not interested, or where the owner has better things to do than reply to emails from random people. -- Colin°Talk 20:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Problem with banner "breaking" mobile

From the Wikitech-L mailing list: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/082264.html Risker (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It has been noticed and is been worked on. Feel free to drop by on IRC where this is currently being discussed. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Move sections

I feel section 1.1 and 1.2 can be moved/merged to Wikipedia:Freedom of Panorama 2015. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ping User:Romaine. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 16:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so majority is in support. Now what?

Ok, we have ~75% support for using the banner, so I think it's time for some people to be bold like on the German Wikipedia, and implement the banner before it is too late. Few more days of voting won't change the picture much, but make this entire exercise worthless. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:とある白い猫/15 Sorry. I guess I was not explicit enough. I do not want any page protected. It looks like the community wants a banner. In order to do that we have to edit MediaWiki:Sitenotice, but that page is protected already (for obvious reasons). So we have to ask somebody to edit it for us by using Template:edit fully-protected. I was asking if somebody here could make a request at MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice using Template:edit fully-protected in order to add the banner that people here are asking for. Sorry I didn't make that more clear. Diphthong (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I've already seen the banner, and I'm in the United States. Perhaps the WMF has already implemented the banner? It looks just like a fund-raising banner, in terms of its prominence. In other words, it's one of those notices that is "in your face" and you can't miss it. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, people are working on implementing the banner. They started at MediaWiki:Sitenotice but had some problems formatting. It looks like now it is being implemented at meta:Special:CentralNotice and will show up on July 1 at 3:00 GMT. Diphthong (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Can't make it work and I need sleep. Either way, a question have been raised on the appropriateness of the current text for the banner. I won't be enabling the banner via CN until that is sorted out. -- KTC (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Response from UK MEPs

I have written to all of the MEPs representing my region (Eastern). Geoffrey Van Orden (Conservative) tells me that they (the European Conservatives and Reformists group, to which the UK Conservative Party belongs) will seek removal of any reference to Freedom of Panorama. He believes that there will be enough support for this deletion to succeed. The office of Stuart Agnew (UKIP) tell me that UKIP are going to oppose the measure since they oppose more or less all new EU regulations on principle. So far, I have had no reply from the Labour Party member. SpinningSpark 16:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That's indeed good to hear. Let us hope this works well. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The reaction of the European Conservatives and Reformists group, decribed above, does not appear to be good news. It seems that they will not support Julia Reda's proposal to widen Freedom of Panorama (see the European Parliament news), but instead go along with Jean-Maria Cavada's defense of the status quo - or have I missed something? Apuldram (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed solution in case the law is adopted

I have not started a discussion at more relevant venue yet (and probably this has been proposed before), but I think in case of the worst scenario, if the law is passed anyway, we should launch a proposal to amend the copyright policy which would allow non-commercial licenses to be used in local Wikipedias (only there). If that proposal is accepted, bots would migrate all deletable Commons images to local Wikipedias where such images are used. While the voting on such a proposal would be underway, the deletion of Commons images should be procedurally put on hold. Brandmeistertalk 07:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I made this point above but it was lost amid irrelevant discussion. If the EP plenary adopts the Reda report as amended, with a paragraph seeking removal of freedom of panorama in the EU member states that currently allow it, then what will happen will be nothing. It's simply advice to the European Commission.
For anything to actually happen, first the Commission would have to decide it wants to take it up - which is unlikely given it adopted a directive endorsing the right of member states to allow freedom of panorama in 2001. Then the European Council, made up of Ministers from the member state governments, would have to vote by a qualified majority in favour of a new directive - which is extremely unlikely given how many have freedom of panorama laws now. Then the member states would have to translate the new directive into national law. Only then do you have to worry about what to do on local wikipedias.
I really do not know why there should be all this fuss about a vague paragraph opposed by the rapporteur which finds its way into an obscure committee report due to the usual horsetrading among members, which is incredibly unlikely to happen ever. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Your analysis is extremely incredibly overconfident.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
But there might even be a giant asteroid collision before then. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I happen to know how EU Parliament works. Indeed if the amendment is enacted we will not be required to immediately enforce that decision, legally we will have time first for the EU member nations to ratify it and then have time to comply with the change. Such ratification that modify copyright tend to give time to remove content. We being the good samaritans would take the initiative to delete the files as soon as possible. Such an amendment would set a precedent for more restrictions in the future. There are (paid) groups lobbying for more restrictions, and mostly volunteers lobbying for a copyright reform to reduce such restrictions. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 16:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, Sam Blacketer actually knew something about how the EU works before this debate started, and didn't just pick his knowledge up from the Wikipedia drama banner. Andreas JN466 22:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely isn't the same as impossible. There is a chance no matter how small it may be (I am taking the word of Sam Blacketer for the sake of this argument) that this may turn out for the worst. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Do not overlook the potential effects on tourism

The commercial use of pictures of skylines and distinctive buildings is essential for promoting tourism, which is a good thing to keep in mind when discussing the matter.

Just look around to see what kind of imagery airlines, hotels, tour organizers and others in the tourism and conferencing sector tend to use. Photos and drawings of famous structures are everywhere. The official tourism boards of cities and regions—as well as large corporations—might be able to take the time and effort to contact every copyright holder to get permission, but for small and medium-sized businesses, it will be easier to just drop the use of photos of anything but really old buildings.

With tourism becoming an ever more important part of the European economy, this argument should appeal to many citizens. We need the best promotion possible in order to stay on top in the global competition for visitors. Also, the advertising we see around us would plainly be more boring if there were no commercial freedom of panorama.--OttoG (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm already planning a nice trip to Brussels. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This is not a bad idea. Might I propose we do this as a group of users? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 13:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Only if we get to hold scary scary banners. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd be more interested in talking to MPs. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why the owner of any commercial real estate wouldn't want us to publish a photo of their buildings. It's free publicity to them. For example, I believe that Brandywine Realty Trust, the owner of the former Bell Atlantic Tower, now called Three Logan Square, actively encouraged us to update the name of the building (see Talk:Three Logan Square). They are in the business of renting office space, and Wikipedia pages about their buildings amount to free advertising for them. It's just not plausible that any such building owner would ever demand the take-down of pictures of their buildings. Even the architects could say, look at these fantastic buildings we've designed for others. Let us design another great office tower for you! Wbm1058 (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You're entirely correct that it makes absolutely no sense for commercial building owners and managers to try to prevent public (taken from public areas/locations) photography and publication of that photography. Despite that, there have been many cases of building management making false claims, including police involvement, against photographers. The usual justification is that it's prohibited due to security concerns (despite there being no provision in law allowing them to prohibit photography from public spaces). Usually, these days, the police are siding with the photographers and telling the building managers to stop wasting police time, but historically there has been improper behaviour by the police as well (up to and including unlawful destruction of evidence (or private property, namely the photographs, depending on your perspective) without judicial oversight). That history makes me think that it is quite naive to believe that it is unlikely that there will be problems arising from this ill-conceived legislation.
The really daft thing, for me, is that the actions don't even make any real sense in security terms, since it is trivial in the 21st century to conduct covert surveillance using devices concealed about the person (in a very James Bond way). It amounts to nothing more than "security through obscurity", which is always a dreadful and fundamentally flawed approach to security. If your security will be compromised by having images available, you've got quite fundamental security problems that will not be solved by trying to limit photography. I.e. stopping legitimate photography by people openly using cameras will not stop the "bad guys" getting all the imagery they need, it won't even really slow them down. N.B. I realise that the intended purpose of this legislation has nothing to do with security, but I predict it being widely abused in the name of security by idiots who are too incompetent to know how to implement real security.
--Murph9000 (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The point is not the potential refusal, nor any potential income to rights-holders - there won't be any. It's the deadening effect of having to either ignore the law or go to huge hassle to research and obtain clearances. Ever notice how film and tv street scenes filmed in France only ever show streets with old buildings? It's not just the tourism authorities. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

What does this really mean? I am confused

So today I see the banner that says something to the effect that "Images of modern buildings must remain on Wikipedia." and we are at risk of needing to take down "thousands" of photos. I see the File:Freedom of Panorama in Europe NC.svg shows that France and Italy are among the countries that are in the "red zone" of draconian laws that prevent Wikipedia from showing pictures of public buildings, and if this new "Panorama" rule takes effect the rest of Europe will be just as badly restricted as France and Italy currently are. What the hell does this really mean? It's not like I've noticed that Wikipedia has fewer pictures of public buildings in France than it does in the UK. Just look at all the pictures in the Paris article.

Why are we able to show these "red zone" public building photos?

Can anyone provide actual links to pictures that we will be required to take down if this thing is enacted, and explain why we will need to delete them? Wbm1058 (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

All those buildings copyrights are in the public domain. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I know you can copyright books, movies, paintings, but... buildings? OK, maybe the architect's plans are copyrighted so that you can't actually build an identical copy of the building? So, we are talking about buildings that were built after 1925? Wbm1058 (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The 1923 cut-off is something specific to U.S. law. In the Berne Convention it is author's date of death plus at least 50 years; individual signatory countries may extend it beyond that.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
We also have pictures of modern skyscrapers such as Tour First and Tour Incity – the latter is still under construction! Why are these red-zone pictures allowed? Can you give me an example of a copyrighted French building, which Wikipedia has no pictures of? Wbm1058 (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I see. From User talk:Jimbo Wales: File:European Parliament building (11055972456).jpg. So we are all amateur lawyers who are all expected to understand and enforce this law? Wbm1058 (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know that anything is "expected" of anyone contributing to Wikipedia. The point is that it will affect Wikipedia's ability to obtain and disseminate certain media.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but I assume that, under normal WMF operating procedures, it will be left entirely up to the volunteers to determine what that "certain media" is? Heck if I know how to figure out what "certain media" is effected. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
It would be handled the same way as all other copyright laws, yes. Media deemed unfree by WMF are removed by WMF. Media deemed unfree by the community are removed by the community/admins.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
That picture came from flickr. Flickr is owned by Yahoo!, a publicly traded for-profit company. I wonder if Yahoo! is concerned about the legality of this picture, and looking to take it down? Wbm1058 (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikimedia is the only site on the internet that routinely takes down suspect copyright material without the copyright owner requesting a takedown. SpinningSpark 23:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that's utter nonsense. Objective3000 (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see: {{FoP-USonly|France}}. We can keep the pictures in English Wikipedia, as long as they are just available in the US. That's why File:Tour First - La Defense - Inauguration 6 mai 2011.jpg is stored on English Wikipedia, and not on Commons. Are these restricted from access to IP addresses based in France? Wbm1058 (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think they are not IP restricted, but we strive to respect the rights granted to the author in their home country.[1] Each chapter and sister project make their own decisions with regard to how they do this.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Given the way that Wikipedia acted the last time that it decided to ignore its policy of neutrality, I see no reason to believe that any posts here explaining this proposed action are totally reliable. That is the lesson we must learn from the last embarrassing time that Wikipedia ventured into the realm of political advocacy instead of keeping to its stated goal of NPOV documentation. I fear WP will again fail the real test of NPOV. Pushing a POV specifically because it is related to Wikipedia itself. How can you claim to have NPOV when you push a POV? This is a test of the ability to prove that WP is a reliable source itself by resisting the urge to push a POV to avoid what it may feel is a damaging ruling. Now, WP can and should fight anything that it may consider damaging to its ability to provide information. BUT, not by coloring its own reporting. NBC may not like a law. It may fight a law. But, it would lose credibility if it used its own news programs to push an agenda that favors them. I fear WP will again abandon its basic rules and abuse its position as a neutral encyclopedia to push a political agenda that favors it. Would the Encyclopedia Britannica do such?

Resist the temptation to use the power of WP in a manner contrary to its stated goals for its own purposes. Do not again let Wikipedia fail the real test – the test that it can remain neutral in a situation that involves Wikipedia itself. The test that it can follow its own rules when they apply to WP itself. If WP fails that test, it has proved itself untrustworthy. Objective3000 (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Late to the party? Your viewpoint has already been proffered roughly one million times above.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to add my irrelevant voice. I could have avoided this faux pas if it had been explained at the top that only certain viewpoints were allowed. Objective3000 (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I just don't see the conflict between espousing a NPOV in the products that one produces and protecting one's own self interest. Failure to protect one's self interest will ultimately lead to the inability to provide the product. Plus WP and WM foundation is not describing the conflict or producing an article about it (in which case that article should be presented as neutral). I.e. the WM foundation and the WP banner is not creating an article on the subject, but notifying users of something that impacts their ability to use the product that they are now viewing. --Trödel 14:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with WP discussing the proposal and its effects in the public arena. But, it should not use an encyclopedia to push a POV. This is strictly against its own rules and makes the encyclopedia less trustworthy. I know that it makes it far less trustworthy in my mind. Objective3000 (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

So I thought I'd check the French version of Tour First: fr:Tour First – my, it has pictures, just like the English version. So, what's the rationale for allowing fr:Fichier:Tour First.JPG?

Per Google Chrome translation:

This illustration shows a building protected by copyright. The author or architect has rights in this image, rights under the Berne Convention, Article 2 1. Some countries do not accept the view of freedom (such as France or Belgium*), the distribution of this work is probably illegal.

Its use on Wikipedia is currently tolerated as "exception to copyright" according to the votes of the community 2006 and 2011 According to the provisions of Wikipedia:

"The importation of the french Wikipedia free photographs of recent buildings is tolerated. However, the import is prohibited in cases where rights holders have explicitly expressed their opposition."

So, it seems that French Wikipedians publish modern-building photos unless "the copyright owner requests a takedown".

I'm not sure what the big deal here is. This is feeling like the Obamacare debate's "don't pull the plug on Grandma" rhetorical hysteria. I suspect we won't really know what this law's impact will be until after it's been enacted. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Or is the Foundation concerned that this might force a takedown of File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg, because its owner objected (animals don't own anything, thus the picture's owner is the owner of the animal). That might not be such a bad thing. But I guess, as that picture's on Commons, even the French and Belgians find it acceptable. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
There is really little doubt that this will significantly hamper Europeans' ability to legally contribute photos of modern buildings/monuments/sculptures. And the banner was actually intended to be shown to Europeans only, per the proposal above,[2] but the relevant functionality in Mediawiki does not seem to allow that at the moment.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Seems it will be "geo-targeted" once it comes back up: [3].--Anders Feder (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
See fr:Wikipédia:Prise de décision/Exceptions à l'interdiction du fair-use (Wikipedia: Decision making / Exceptions to the prohibition of fair use) for the French consensus on this problem. So, what you seem to be saying is that, this will go above and beyond even the current French and Belgian restrictions, and that fr:Modèle:Bâtiment récent will no longer be a viable solution? How does this extend the impact of the current French law? Wbm1058 (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I only know what I've read here, but I am not aware that the proposed amendment will extend the impact in France. Rather, it will impact nearly all other countries in the EU, which currently do enjoy freedom of panorama in various degrees. Wikipedians in these countries currently can freely upload photos of the types of works in question, but would no longer be able to do so if the proposed amendment is enacted.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a hard time with some of the legal issues here. It is my understanding that:

  1. There is FoP in the US and UK for buildings, but not in France.
  2. The Berne Convention (which the US, UK and France ratified) says the copyright law applies in each country independantly of the country of origin, i.e. a photograph of a building in country X taken by a citizen of country Y can be published in country Z according to the provisions of country Z no matter what X and Y say. (Minus the fact that copyright abroad should not be extended beyond copyright at home but never mind)
  3. The Wikimedia servers that answer web requests going to en.wikipedia.org or fr.wikipedia.org are located in the US.

From that I deduce that European (UK, FR or else) law is irrelevant, because the content is "published" in the US (internet packets come from there) and hence US law applies, which will not be directly affected by acts of the European parliament. It is possible that European users of Wikipedia or people that upload content from European countries will be affected, but the Wikimedia foundation has clean hands. I expect most users and uploaders to take the chance anyways (if only by ignorance). Is that analysis is correct? Tigraan (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No. Our procedures require that the image be available in both the US and the country of origin. There is a lot of argument about whether uploading constitutes publication in the US; obviously we do not want it to, because of the lack of freedom there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, but if that procedure was the result of a "better safe than sorry" stance, it might be worth reconsidering it if large amounts of FoP images are affected. If it is merely the logical consequence of laws, then positions of the WP community or the Board of Trustees change nothing, but otherwise the issue is still up for debate. Tigraan (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC) (Just to be clear, I am not saying we should not care about uploaders and viewers as long as serving is fine. All I am saying is that technically, the WP servers could lawfully deliver content that was uploaded unlawfully and is viewed unlawfully.)
Tigraan, FOP is an exemption from copyright it does not nullify it. FOP gives you the ability to take a photo of a 3D object (say a building) and not be required to pay royalties. You cannot however make a copy of the 3D work itself. Mind that US FOP has no application outside of US borders. With Uruguay Round Agreements Act we have to abide by the local laws as well as US laws (whichever is more restrictive). US copyright law has rule of the longer term so it is at a minimum authors life + 70 years. You also have to take the national origin of the copyright holder into account in certain conditions which can increase the length. So it isn't just a matter of our procedures. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 15:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's just be clear ...

that this campaign is about the commercial interests of downstream users like Google and Facebook, rather than about the interests of ordinary users. Commons and Wikipedia could use non-commercial licences and/or fair-use rationales, and the entire "threat to Wikipedia" would -- poof! -- disappear. But there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth from downstream commercial users who've built billion-dollar businesses on the back of Wikimedia volunteers' work!

Like the SOPA protest, in a way this action ain't bad: it exposes Wikipedia for what it is. Andreas JN466 22:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I oppose the law, and I oppose Wikipedia becoming a non-neutral political advocate, but we need to be clear about what the law is. For France and Italy, it doesn't mean much, but for most everyone else, it eliminates non-commercial and fair-use exceptions, so they wouldn't work anymore. If there's going to be debate, let's spend the effort on debating the right thing. --Unready (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Fine, Unready. So, as reported in the press, for French buildings nothing would change. Now I note that in the French Wikipedia, there is a pretty picture of the fr:Viaduc de Millau (there is one in the English Wikipedia too, of course). It's been like that for years. If that pic can be shown now, then obviously it could still be shown in the (extremely unlikely) event that other European countries were to adopt the French standard. Yet on the info page the public are led to by the Wikipedia banner, the Millau Viaduct is blacked out. Isn't Wikipedia plain lying to readers here? Andreas JN466 15:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Andreas, I think you're spot-on with your analysis. The real reason behind this drama-fest is that Google is at risk of no longer being allowed to use free images for commercial purposes. They just have to run their campaign through Wikipedia because otherwise everyone would see through this "we know he has weapons of mass-destruction" campaign. Wbm1058 (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Andreas, I hope you do realize what "non-commercial" means. Non-commercial applies to ALL cases that cause commercial harm. Mass publication through a website such as Wikipedia would constitute as a commercial loss and a lawsuit would be a mere formality. Why? Because by making something available for free, you'd be causing a commercial loss by breaking the monopoly of that intellectual property. This is why it is called copyright. You'd not even be allowed to print text books with the images since that would constitute as a commercial use. Claiming that only Google and Facebook has something at stake is wishful thinking at best. Also mind that even the "all retrictive" fair-use does not have a non-commercial restriction. You can parody a copyrighted work and make as much commercial gain as you like - it specifically has this feature to allow commercial gain to promote parodies. I am not even beginning to discuss how non-commercial licenses make us by definition an unfree encyclopedia. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I know, there are no text books in France and Italy because no one can afford to print them, and Wikipedia has been completely unable to cover France and Italy to date. Do the French even have Wikipedia? And I totally get why freedom is great. You're free to work for free, free to imagine yourself as freeing mankind, and Google and Facebook are free to enjoy the $$$ and commercial usage rights to everything you do – free at last, free at last; thank God almighty we're free at last. :) Enjoy your freedom fries. Andreas JN466 11:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • A Certain White Cat, how come this file is on the French Wikipedia? [4] It's got a copyright notice and everything, with a special template made for that purpose. That file's been there for six years. Where is that lawsuit that you say is a "mere formality"? And that's one of the buildings blacked out on the "Learn more ..." page. Scaremongering. Andreas JN466 15:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Indeed. It's one of over 1,400 images in fr:Catégorie:Image non libre de bâtiment récent (Category: Non-free image of new building). How many pictures in this category have been deleted because their copyright holders asked for them to be taken down, or threatened a lawsuit? Wbm1058 (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I think all of you guys fail to understand copyright law and its ramifications. France has a very restrictive copyright law and would not be affected by the amendment. They already do NOT have any kind of FOP. The law would extend the same restriction to rest of Europe. Countries like Germany have no equivalent of "fair-use" but have FOP compatible with free licensing. I have not seen a single compelling argument what additional restrictions for commercial use would serve our mission aside from hindering it. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Fuck this. The public are told that if this "restrictive copyright law" were to become standard across the EU, all those blacked out pictures of buildings would have to come off Wikipedia. And that's just been demonstrated to be a patent lie, hasn't it? Andreas JN466 23:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
          • If you are unable to participate in a discussion in a civil manner, please don't. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 07:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It is precisely because Wikipedia allows any use of its contributed content, commercial or non-commercial, that it has become so successful. Since there are no restrictions, anyone can use the encyclopedia anytime, whether at work or at home. There are no “do not do this” or “do not do that” restrictions that need to be imposed on the readers. Thus, this issue is indeed about protecting the strength of Wikipedia. What Google or anyone else might do with the content is insignificant to the matter.--OttoG (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Oh, but what Google does with our content is very significant to the matter. If they simply index it, that helps drive readers to our site: more readers, more potential donors to the Foundation. If they copy significant content from us, and publish it on their own site, then readers may no longer feel the need to click through to us... then we'll have fewer readers, and fewer donors. Unless Google makes up for that by donating at Koch brothers-levels, they hurt Wikipedia in that scenario. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I disagree quite strongly with that. As long as Google provides attribution and a link to the original WP content, it's always a positive thing for them to present WP content on their sites (beyond just index search results). It doesn't matter which server sends the bytes to the end user, WP benefits from the exposure either way. As far as I'm aware, Google's use of WP content always includes an obvious attribution/link into the same content on WP. --Murph9000 (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Joking aside, I see no problem per se in Google using Wikipedia content. But you have to be cognizant of the fact that this entire economy is based on unpaid volunteer work. There comes a point where the sheer scale of the profits made from advertisements, and the propaganda machine keeping this convenient arrangement going, just become obscene. I am fairly certain that historians of the year 2100 will look back at our times and view the present arrangements around volunteer work online with the same moral horror as we today might feel looking at labour practices that were common in the 19th-century, in the early days of the industrial revolution. Users are screwed today: they work for nothing, and happily (often unwittingly) sign over all rights to benefit from their work to multi-billion-dollar companies. Andreas JN466 14:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Press: "Wikipedia jumps aboard the bogus 'freedom of panorama' bandwagon", published a couple of hours ago in The Register. Note that this isn't the first time Wikipedia rhetoric has been criticised as over the top scaremongering. In the case of SOPA and the recent fundraising campaign, such criticism has even come from principled Wikimedia Foundation staff: SOPA, fundraising. Andreas JN466 14:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
If it's embarrassing to stand up against erosion of rights on matters close to freedom of speech and expression, and other fundamental freedoms (I consider photography in public places to be somewhere within the spectrum of free speech issues and fundamental rights), then please ship me a bulk supply of embarrassment! If this campaign turns out to be a lot of worrying about nothing, at least it's worrying about a worthy overall cause. It still sends a useful message that there are a significant number of people interested in retaining personal rights around public photography. --Murph9000 (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, Wikipedia has every right to stand up for whatever of its rights it thinks may be harmed in the proper arena. But, violating your own rules by blasting a POV all over an encyclopedia, in a case that appears to be a gross overreaction to a proposal that is nowhere near enactment is embarrassing. Objective3000 (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
We are? What point of view are we pushing? All we are explaining is the possible consequences of the amendment. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, you are outright misrepresenting those possible consequences, making readers believe that French buildings for example that have been depicted in Wikipedia for years could no longer be so depicted. That's just made up, designed to mislead gullible readers. Andreas JN466 00:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It's hardly blasting a POV all over WP. The notice is dismissible, so only has to be viewed once by people who are disinterested in it. It's also not really a POV as such, as it just seems to be explaining a proposed piece of legislation and the negative impact that it could have on WP. That seems an entirely valid and important thing to highlight to visitors who would very likely be unaware of the legislation. I agree that WP should generally avoid political activism, and try to stay neutral on political issues. There is one major exception to that, however, where the activism is directly related to preserving or supporting the core mission of WP. In this case, the activism was quite justified as the proposed legislation had direct negative consequences for WP. That it was a long way from enactment is mostly irrelevant. What is relevant is that it was being proposed, and it can sometimes be easier to get these things changed or stopped by getting involved at the earliest possible point, before the proposals pass certain procedural points of no return. --Murph9000 (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like: "A POV is OK if it's 'correct'." Objective3000 (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
And what POV is that? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 07:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Let's just be clear. We always made full use of laws that benefited our mission. Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) was formed as a "non-profit" NGO to have tax deductible donations. We have had Wikimedia chapters come out to existence to fill in the role of WMF at a local level while offering the same "tax deductible" framework at the local level. No NGO can be immune from influencing and/or being affected by politics when they operate at a global level even if they completely maintain a non-involvement policy towards anything political. For instance simply providing free access to all human knowledge has significant political consequences as the electorate will now be voting in a more informed manner which will have an influence on their decision when casting their votes.
  • Mind that I agree with the notion that we are NOT a political lobby group and should neither act or pretend to be one. However, as frustrating this may sound, not taking a side is often siding with the worse option in many cases. Consider the SOPA legislation which suggested faster speeds to entities paying and slower speeds to entities that aren't. This would have global ramifications as most of our servers are in the US. Along with many other websites whom some normally aren't even politically active at all decided to black out their site. Why did this happen? Why would websites close shop and cut-off their own livelyhood for a full day? It is because the law threatened their existence.
  • The amendment to the EU legislation vote does NOT threaten our existence. The idea here is to prevent gradual erosion of our content with small changes to the legislation. The amendment does however limit the use of content from EU countries by making existing photographs of statues and buildings still in copyright (meaning you cannot make a 3D copy) non-commercial which makes them unusable on our project as non-commercial works are not considered free. This fine consequence of the law is unknown to the general public and with the banner we merely informed the electorate of this by stating that "photos of modern buildings must remain on Wikipedia, a proposal in the European Parliament puts thousands of images on Wikipedia in danger". The banner links to a page asking our readers to contact their MPs. Given the consequences, the electorate may contact their MPs in support of the amendment as well as against it. MPs should serve the interests of the people they represent.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 08:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • non-commercial which makes them unusable on our project as non-commercial works are not considered free: There you go again talking absolute piffle. Non-free content is not unusable on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia contains over 150,000 non-free album covers alone, along with hundreds of thousands of movie stills, newspaper pages, company logos, book covers and God knows what, none of which come with a licence allowing commercial reuse by Wikipedia readers. Wikipedia banner campaigns have two problems: one is that they are a violation of NPOV, the second one is that many people feel the information provided to the public is extremely dodgy and tendentious. [5][6] One could perhaps talk about the first problem, if the second one were addressed first. ;) Andreas JN466 12:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Fair-use is acceptable if used in a limited manner. Of the non-free content, how many are in a high resolution for example? The banner is not part of the sites content hence I cannot imagine how neutral point of view is involved. The banner is factually accurate too, it isn't even an opinion. We WILL delete files that lack the four freedoms we require. We did this before when public domain works became copyrighted when a law was passed restoring their copyright. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 13:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
      • You told a blatant untruth. Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of non-free images, hosted under fair use where justifiable for an educational purpose, and that is just as it should be. Fair use is acceptable where it serves a legitimate educational purpose, and there is no need to whine about file resolutions. There is no conceivable educational need for an album cover or book cover image file to be in a high enough resolution for someone to print copies that are indistinguishable from the original. Right? Andreas JN466 13:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I would appreciate it if you'd cease insisting that I am (somehow) trying to mislead the community. For starters you are talking about the US legal system where the concept of fair use and educational use exists. This isn't the case in many countries such as Germany which however has FOP unlike say France or Belgium. Moreover German courts found CC-by-NC to be only usable for personal use. This was over a case where a CC-BY-NC photo was used on the Web site of a non-commercial broadcaster/organization. If you want a more detaild sicussion on the matter there is this pdf. As for your second point, there is a conceivable educational value in being able to have high resolution images of FOP works to get the fine detail. We would be forced to use a low resolution copies if FOP is removed. Mind that we do not allow unfree images of buildings and statues on articles so if FOP does not allow a photo we do not have a photo in the article unless local law allows us some other way to feature the image such as the case with fr:Viaduc de Millau photos taken from a distance. Mind that I find this kind of usage questionable at best but that's merely my opinion. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 09:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Coming late to the fray, but I feel I have to slip a word here.
  1. Wikipedia's content is licensed in a way that allows commercial use. Maybe it is a bad thing, but that is the way it has been until now. While one might rant about Gogol, Fussbuk et. al. taking a free ride on content created by hard-working altruist Wikipedians, banning FoP would change that only insofar as WP would have less content, so they could freeload on less. Bleeding the patient to make them less tasty for vampires is quite a counterproductive policy IMO.
  2. WP cannot generally use content that is not commercial-use-free. The reason is that "non-commercial" as understood by the Creative Commons licenses is very restrictive; the mere fact that Wikimedia might sell CD/DVDs of WP means that a commercial license is needed (the other option is to look for and scrap non-commercial-free content off before releasing but that would be awfully hard to do).
  3. As many people of the libre community, I consider my edits to WP as a gift (of mediocre value) to humanity, that is free in the two meanings (libre and gratis). I would oppose any attempt to restrict the use of WP content by Gogol, Fussbuk, Jack the Reaper or <insert bad guy here>, even if it was technically and legally possible, on philosophical grounds. While my position may represent only a tiny minority, that is not self-evident and I would not appreciate such action to be taken with a rationale of 'duh, of course everyone wants this'.
Tigraan (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Tigraan, if you are trying to create the absolutely false impression that Wikipedia contains no non-free content, then please stop. Just stop. I don't know whether album cover images for example (all copyrighted) are stripped from CD versions of Wikipedia, but it is very clear that there is no problem including non-free content in Wikipedia, and that it is quite possible to satisfy and respect both owners' and readers' needs and rights. As for your vampire simile, if I were to accept those terms, then all I am saying is, don't make yourself the vampire's PR agent. They can do their own PR. Andreas JN466 12:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Andreas, what about wikis without any non-free content (or uploads for that matter)? non-free content is an exception not a rule. We have diminished our non-free content over the years. I have experienced this. Fair use content was restricted to content space. A "fair use rationale" was added where users of non-free content were required to explain why they are using non-free content, this also restricted the number of uses of an image. Fair use images were required to have a lower resolution. We used to have "list of episode" articles with per episode screen captures. This decorative use was abolished too. Articles featuring buildings and statues without FOP got their images taken down as this was not deemed acceptable non-free content use. In the non-distant future we may decide to restrict non-free content more. So why do you think it is a good idea to promote unfree content at this point? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't think it is a good idea to promote unfree content. I think it is a bad idea for Wikipedia to exaggerate or tell lies in order to arrive at more effective rhetoric. Wikim/pedia claims that its educational purpose is jeopardised if it can't grant full commercial reusability to all images it hosts. That isn't the case, is it? Wikipedia's educational purpose is protected by fair use provisions. If there were a whole category of images that Wikimedia could only host with non-commercial licences, a separate central project analogous to Commons could be set up to serve educational purposes in the various wikis. This is all academic now anyway: there was never any significant likelihood of countries like the UK and Germany giving up their freedom of panorama, and there is zero likelihood of that now, given Oettinger's recent statement on Twitter. Andreas JN466 13:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Maybe English Wikipedia could manage with fair use through the use of low resolution files of otherwise high-res FOP files. We do not allow such files currently though so more consensus on the matter is needed. Non-commercial licenses are more restrictive than you think. I mentioned this twice before today but German courts found CC-by-NC to be only usable for personal use. Hence German edition of Wikipedia that has no fair-use content has no incentive to use non-commercial content. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 09:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
            • The fact that we do not allow free but non-commercial licences hurts us badly. It is precisely what opens us up to the widespread charge that Wikipedia is a tool of American corporate interests. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Totally agree with Andreas. It would be far more straightforward to change Commons licensing to force Non-Commercial use, by organising a survey with all Wikipedia users for examples. The justifications of DVD/CD/Book sells are just bullshits. Facebook and Google are the main scroungers of Wikipedia's work. By the way, the banner wording above can clearly be seen as a sort of propaganda, because it completely avoids the main concern which is : "to prohibit commercial use". Not sure if ordinary users would see all this stuff as a freedom threat with a correct wording.Woodada (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Woodada, I hope you do understand what non-commercial means. Non-commercial does not JUST mean "don't make money out of it". It also applies to any actions that cause financial loss to the owner. Us putting such content on Commons and Wikipedia with a non-commercial license would constitute a commercial financial loss as we are mass publishing their works for free and fewer people would have an incentive to pay to buy their copies & photos and therefore would seek take-downs and we would not be able to host such files.
    • I hope you are also aware that Wikipedia is sold to countries with bad internet coverage through programs like One Laptop per Child to cover the cost of the hardware. As you mentioned, our content is also used by websites such as Google, Answers.com or Ask.com whom from time to time sponsor our activities which makes some of our activity possible through their sponsorship and donations. Wikipedia exists in the public space for the use of everyone freely. You can make free copies of it, you can modify it, as long as you provide attribution you can pretty much do whatever you like with it without worrying if you will be sued for your activity! All this is possible because of our free license and I see no compelling argument for us to abandon it.
    -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    • A Certain White Cat I definitely don't see how the owner of an image released under CC-BY-NC could use the law to attack an organisation like Wikipedia which would only use that image on some articles, without making money from it. Can you give me an example of such a trial? Can you quote the laws which give the right to a CC-BY-NC image owner (i.e. non commercial, non profit, no money AND open) to ask for a compensation for financial loss if no money is made from it???? By the way, the program One Laptop per Child is not commercial, so not concerned. Google, Answers.com or Ask.com could simply use Wikipedia's content without making money from it, or use a filter to ignore NC content.Woodada (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
      • For one, we do get donations - sizable ones - from corporations such as google that use our content. These companies are not stupid, they do not want to see Wikipedia fail hence why they donate so as not to lose existence of our content even if it is available for free. WMF does need staff and hardware to keep things running after all. Mind that it is not trivial to constantly dodge content with exclusive NC particularly when dealing with large amount of data particularly if you distribute that content to multiple data centers with cached data.
      • One Laptop per Child (OLPC) laptops are sold /for profit/ during fundraising events where if you buy a laptop (which comes with Wikipedia) you donate one as well. OLPC also sells these laptops to governments whom distribute them, not for profit mind you - just the cost of the hardware and shipping but that is the type of activity an NC clause would prevent regardless of the intention. It is the same as selling Wikipedia on a DVD. So if we introduce a NC element, we are effectively robbing OLPC recipient children of Wikipedia in their possibly internet-less communities. Of course another alternative is for OLPC to hire more staff at added cost (meaning fewer laptops for the recipients) to remove NC content.
      • NC licenses have a catch, they are intended for limited use hence why we do not consider them free. When we say limited use here, we mean limited viewership as well so if a popular site uses the files they can be subject to take-down notices for that reason alone. By giving something away for free, you hurt its commercial value. How do you think piracy related lawsuits go so high? It is not because copyright is violated, it is more about the financial impact. We would be restricted by the NC nature of the new FOP laws themselves that would be drafted on top of the amendment itself which may make CC-BY-NC insufficient. There already was talk about the supporters of the amendment to restrict resolution to low for example. Doing a quick google search I came up with this interesting blog post which asks the question how non-commercial CC-BY-NC really is and gives an example scenario of a teacher using NC content in a class the students are paying for it? Creative Commons researched something similar and found that their test subjects were unsure of what NC supposedly is so I completely understand why this is confusing for everybody, myself included. Moreover German courts found CC-by-NC to be only usable for personal use. This was over a case where a CC-BY-NC photo was used on the Web site of a non-commercial broadcaster/organization. If you want a more detaild sicussion on the matter there is this pdf.
      • In a nutshell NC complicates things unnecessarily and we should delete any content non-compliant with a free license.
      -- A Certain White Cat chi? 09:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
In a nutshell, NC equals free. The idea that we have to use low-resolution for free images is rubbish. Low resolution is only required when we are using non-free images under fair use. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015/Archive_1&oldid=1137414128"