a decision by the Swedish Supreme Court today says Wikimedia, the Wikipedia editor, must pay compensation to the creators of original sculptures and monuments when publishing own photos to Wikimedia said sculptures and monuments. Note that this is not about the use of photos without permission; photos are used with permission. It is the fact that the photos are public - art - and financed by taxpayers. This is the freedom of Panorama went wrong, and shows one facet of the total breaking of copyright law.
The verdict (in Swedish, full verdict here) states that people have the right to take photos of public art for personal use, and distribute those limited in scope, but only in a non-digital form (yes, really, I do not make this up).
The Supreme Court rules that a "public database" as Wikipedia - or in this case, the specialized site Wikimedia offentligkonst.se (a name that means "art public ") - is different from personal use, and that a database of public art and monuments has significant commercial value, and that value is one of the original creators. It does not matter if the site is commercial reality or not
The Supreme Court concluded that Wikimedia, according to the copyright monopoly law, is forbidden to publish photos public art -. The pictures where the photographer explicitly allowed Wikimedia publish - without the permission of the creators of the original monuments
This decision has a very large number of very big problems .. Take of some them.
First, it is about public art. The Supreme Court is essentially to power someone has represented the image on your retina via reflected photons, or electronic equivalent of your retina. There was a huge fight about it in Europe regarding the so-called Reda report last year which evaluated what works and what does not in the monopoly of European copyright law. Julia Reda, the report's author, wanted a clear and unambiguous freedom of Panorama apply across Europe - you should have a clear right to take and publish any photo. Excluding infants dinosaurs returned fire, and freedom was finally removed from the report. Therefore, this decision can not be appealed - there is no harmonization at EU level of freedom of Panorama
Second, it goes against every grain of common sense for net generation
Third, literally .. having different laws for analogue and digital transmission of art is stupid, especially when a digital less protection of freedom of speech and expression.
Fourth, even if none of the above points were true, original art is always funded by taxpayers. The public has already paid for the construction and development of the art in question during the commissioning of an artist service to create the sculpture, monument, et cetera. To deny the public the right to take a picture of something the same public has already paid for revolt alongside the legal corruption
Wait decision to have significant consequences for Wikipedia operations -. And its presence in Sweden. and Europe
CLARIFICATION: This is displayed on April 4. This is not the joke a little old April Fool. It is too stupid to be a funny joke April fish, anyway
(Hat tip: Sara Goldberger).
0 Komentar