Return to the user page of "Eleassar".
Leave me a message
——————————————— MY TALK PAGE —————————————
Hello, welcome to my talk page. You are welcome to post any comments below. Please be polite and follow Commons guidelines.
-- coding taken from White Cat.
-- coding taken from Timwi.
E-mail sent to youEdit
- Hi, I'm reluctant to answer by email. You can just write it here if you wish. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, are you paid for uploading photographs outside the scope of the project? --Eleassar (t/p) 17:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- The motivation is that I care about this project. Its mission is to provide photographs that are free for any use and may be freely reused. The ones that have been proposed for deletion do not meet this criterion. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- If you don't get caught in the shop stealing a sandwich because the shop's owner didn't bother to run after you, that does not make your act rightful. The same is here. If you reuse non-free content for commercial purpose without seeking the author's permission, you're infringing their copyright, which is similar to intellectual theft. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- In Wikipedia we gather information from other sources. We are copying. Because we believe in free knowledge. Imo it is very clear that Wikipedia itself mass violates copyright. In random cases these violations will be brought to courtyard where there will be a random judgement. Therefore I find it rather strange to execute copyright violations in advance. Having images in local Wikipedias instead on commons for everyone is not the Wikipedia spirit.
- People who use my photos do very often not correctly follow the terms of the cc-by-sa. But I don't sue them because that's not the mission. I don't do it for money obviously.
- I just took a look over the Slovenian law. Why is this country actually considered to lack freedom of panorama? There are quite some exceptions for §47. Especially §55 sounds very much like applicable freedom of panorama to me. Also §51.1 seems to allow Encyclopedia use. In those fuzzy cases the upper courtyard decides. I assume you are Slovenian? Did you ever hear of a lawsuit in that context? --Thomas Ledl (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- In Wikipedia we're not violating copyright. At least not deliberately. What makes you think so? On the contrary, the project actively seeks and removes copyright infringements.
- If you don't sue them, that doesn't mean they are not acting against the law and depriving you of your rights.
- The freedom of panorama in Slovenia is limited to use for non-commercial purposes, which is not free enough for Wikipedia and Commons. So far, there has been no lawsuit, but:
- a) This does not abolish our principle to offer as free only that which truly is free (it would be unethical to do otherwise); and
- b) The EU legislation is getting ever stricter (and our Office for Intellectual Property just recently reiterated Article 55). It's just a matter of time and we absolutely want to stay out of this. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I fully agree to what you say about Wikipedia copyright violations. It is my personal impression because I know the way Wikipedians work. Especially long time contributors are never questioned and only have one source that is actually copyright protected.
- Not sure if you got what I'm saying bout §55. You stated The freedom of panorama in Slovenia is limited to use for non-commercial purposes. This seems to be a citation. Can you provide a source (outside Wikipedia)?
- Because when I read §51 and §55 I get a different impression. At least the cited lines are wrong and lost their context. The full text is available in English as well http://www.uil-sipo.si/fileadmin/upload_folder/zakonodaja/ZASP_EN_2007.pdf
- The statement COM:FOP Slovenia about consensus I cannot find in the original document (imo describes the opposite of extended owner rights under 4. Enabling access and documenting) http://www.arhiv.mk.gov.si/fileadmin/mk.gov.si/pageuploads/min_eng/legislation/CHPA.pdf .
- In best case there should be an official statement from https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/counsel/ it seems to me that Aymatth2 who wrote the article is not part of that group.
Article 55 Works located in generally accessible premises (1) Works permanently placed in parks, streets, squares, or other generally accessible premises may be used freely. (2) Works mentioned in the foregoing paragraph may not be reproduced in a three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work, or used for economic gain. (3) In cases stated in paragraph (1) of this Article, the source and authorship of the work must be indicated, if the latter is indicated on the work used.
- This statement is written in Article 55 itself (may not be used for economic gain) and has also been reiterated by the Slovenian Office for Intellectual Property: "za uporabo varovanih del v komercialne namene treba pridobiti soglasje imetnika avtorske pravice. [For the reuse of copyrighted works for commercial purposes, the copyright owner's consent must be sought.]" --Eleassar (t/p) 15:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have no idea how this newspaper article can be a better source than the original ZASP cited above. The blog from jean marie cavada does not even mention Slovenia (and #2 it is a blog and #3 this guy is confusing things).
Article 51 Quotations (1) It shall be permissible to make quotations of parts of a disclosed work and of single disclosed photographs, works of fine arts, architecture, applied art, industrial design and cartography, provided it is necessary for the purpose of illustration, argumentation or referral. (2) In cases stated in the foregoing paragraph, the source and authorship of the work must be indicated, if the latter is indicated on the work used.