11 ms·
The Illegal Map of Swedish Art
- poof_he_is_gone 11y agoThe public may own the physical artwork, but may not own the licensing to reproductions of it. Searching Cloud Gate on shutterstock.com will quickly show you that all of the images are editorial use only for this reason.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoThe app provides pictures of art without permission. That part seems clear. The OP claims 'even when its in a public place and owned by the public'. That part seems odd. It would be good to (be able to) read the decision.
- overlordalex 11y agoThere must be some subtly in the law. Or perhaps Sweden has unusual laws about what you can photograph in/from a public space. That being said, I wonder if an architect could claim an unusual/interesting building as a work of art, and then have it removed from google street view?
- Freak_NL 11y agoThis is actually something that is attempted every now and then; architects claiming that they own the (commercial) visual rights to something that exists in public space. In 2004 the architect of a bridge in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, tried to claim that photographs and reproductions of 'his' bridge were unlawful, and that a fee would have to paid for any sold reproduction of that bridge (such as a postcard). Luckily this was prevented by an EU directive that states clearly that any art or architecture located in a public area may be photographed, provided that it is reproduced as-is. I wonder if this EU directive is applicable to this situation in Sweden?
- zbjornson 11y agoSame thing with the Eiffel tower lights - they're copyright art separate from the public tower. http://artlawjournal.com/night-photos-eiffel-tower-violate-copyright/ http://artlawjournal.com/night-photos-eiffel-tower-violate-c...
- eli 11y agoThe owners of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland decided they own rights to pictures of the building from the outside as well http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/16/us/rock-hall-of-fame-asserts-ownership-of-image.html http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/16/us/rock-hall-of-fame-asser...
- sammydavis 11y agoThat was a fascinating case. The photographer lost in the initial round, but won 2 appeals, and then the hall of fame gave up after that. Imagine if you could prevent people of taking pictures of buildings. Then you couldn't take a picture of downtown cities, you'd have to negotiate with all those building owners! If you search for the above case (Gentile vs Rock and Roll Hall of Fame), then you find the famous Sydney Opera House tried to keep iStockPhoto from having a picture. That doesn't seem to have gone to trial, but a law professor thought it wouldn't hold up in court.
- vilhelm_s 11y agoHm, maybe you can find some more details about that case? As I understood it, the EU copyright directive does not say anything about freedom of panorama either way (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama#European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama#European_U...), but maybe there are some subtleties.
- Freak_NL 11y agoFrom what I can tell without any legal expertise, the EU Copyright Directive provides a way for countries to make certain exceptions (article 5(3)), which literally includes the case of architecture and sculptures in a public setting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive So whereas the Netherlands sensibly chose to enact this exception, other countries selectively allowed certain situations, such as the lights of the Eiffel Tower and possibly Belgium's Atomium landmark. This blog post (in Dutch) contains a good summary of the Dutch bridge case: http://www.nandoonline.com/?p=4543 http://www.nandoonline.com/?p=4543
- Fuxy 11y agoTaking that a step further imagine if the architects of iconic buildings like the Burj Al Arab etc would start requiring people to ask permission before posting photos of it on the internet or using it in maps.
- hjnilsson 11y agoBuildings are explicitly from the law banning databases of depictions. So Street View for example would not be affected (or any photo of a unique building).
- cooper12 11y agoI think since this is a Wikimedia project, that the images themselves were freely licensed, but Sweden has weak or no Freedom of Panorama, which is where the "public" part would factor in. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama) edit: I found more details here: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/04/strike-against-freedom-panorama/ https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/04/strike-against-freedom...
- nissehulth 11y agoI notice that the pictures in your first link contradict each other. The world view shows Sweden as ok, the sidebar European map says that it's not.
- cooper12 11y agoThat's because the former wasn't updated yet. Thanks for pointing it out, I've fixed it.
- mattmanser 11y agoHow long before google replaces your google adwords with the artists if it detects the somewhere on your page you have a photograph of a public place that happens to contain a statue?
- LoSboccacc 11y agocurrent title "The Illegal Map of Swedish Art " is clickbait. The map is fine, photo of work of art were included in the map and those were found infringing.
- hjnilsson 11y agoActually, it is the reverse. It is the database (ie. the map) that was found to be illegal. The photos contained within are not. And if they were not assembled into a database, they would all be perfectly legal. This is even explicitly mentioned in the court decision (in swedish): http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Mer-om-Hogsta-domstolen/Nyheter-fran-Hogsta-domstolen/Hogsta-domstolen-avgor-tvist-om-internetbilder-av-konstverk/ http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Mer-om-Hogsta-domstolen/Nyhete...
- Trombone12 11y agoNo, it is the act of pooling images into a database that is the issue. According to the court including the copyleft licensed photos in the database creates value that the creators then have a claim on. It is however from the ruling not clear exactly how the photos and metadata create value; for instance it seems clear like just hosting all the offending images on a separate service and naming them with guid:s will be perfectly fine so long as the user has to navigate and find the image themselves. Ruling: http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgoranden/2016/2016-04-04%20%C3%96%20849-15%20Beslut.pdf http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgo...
- aub3bhat 11y agoRelated: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136945/Absurd-new-EU-law-mean-ll-face-legal-action-taking-pictures-famous-landmarks-Photos-punished-breach-copyright.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136945/Absurd-new-E...
- Loque 11y agodailymail should go on your forbidden list, UK red tops are terrible; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid_journalism#Red_tops https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid_journalism#Red_tops example; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1296282/I-dosing-How-teenagers-getting-digitally-high-music-download-internet.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1296282/I-dos...
- anon4 11y agoDaily Mail is like The Onion, except they expect you to believe the shit they write is true. And not funny. So not really like The Onion.
- hapidjus 11y agoI'm not familiar with all the details but as I understand it, the problem is not taking photos of the art, but compiling a catalog of said photos.
- belorn 11y agoReading the article from the Swedish national radio, the court decision found that wikimedia database of photo has a "commercial value" that can compete with commercial enterprises of the copyright authors who created the public statues or paintings on buildings. The journalist asked a lawyer if this mean that its illegal now to take a photo of public statues, and the lawyer said that it legal since the law explicitly says so, but it might not be legal to publish it" on the Internet" as that action might be considered to have a commercial value. In my view, its a bit weird.
- pilif 11y ago> In my view, its a bit weird. I think it's a matter of opportunity cost. By giving away an art-finder like this for free, using the pictures of the sculptures, you take away the incentive for commercial provider to do the same thing. Commercial providers would have to pay money for the pictures and thus, a free app is costing the copyright owner (or the manager of the copyrights) money indirectly. And even failing that: By publishing this on the internet, even if you are offering it for free and without ads, you still create value for third-parties with this content (carriers, platform owners, whoever is injecting ads into your content, etc), so as monetary value is created with this content, the management agency wants to be paid and if they can't be, then they want the content off the net, so other content might appear where they are getting paid. At least that's what I believe to be the reasoning.
- LeifCarrotson 11y agoThat may be the reasoning, but it's nonsense. Anything done for free - picking up litter, sharing photographs online, giving someone directions - could be done commercially. Anything done commercially could be done commercially for more money. This may be the law, but it violates my basic understanding of fairness.
- RobertoG 11y agoThat reasoning make some sense for objects in a museum, but for public art in the street? Something that it's not clear to me is if this "public art" has been paid with public money. That would make all this even more crazy.
- hitlin37 11y agoThe current headline is ambiguous. The blog is about copyright law around the map website.
- studentrob 11y agoNow I'm curious to see photos of said mapped artwork..
- thomasahle 11y agoDoes this also make Goole Street View illegal?
- hjnilsson 11y agoNo. The law in question explicitly allows depictions of building, they are seen as separate from artwork.
- basch 11y agooutdoor statues
- mynewtb 11y agoBut what about artworks at/near streets?
- hjnilsson 11y agoThe law allows photos of artwork as long as the photos are not part of a catalogue of art. And Street View is obviously not an art catalogue.
- Ma8ee 11y agoStreet View depicts other things than building. The following example is almost certainly illegal: https://goo.gl/maps/3KCxh5LRs3B2 https://goo.gl/maps/3KCxh5LRs3B2
- hjnilsson 11y agoNo. Street View does not offer a list of all artwork, and a way to find the images of them. Thus it would not fall under the "database of artwork" umbrella mentioned in the law. There is no metadata such as author of the work etc. that would make it a database of artwork.
- thomasahle 11y ago
- ptaipale 11y agoRelated: http://www.thelocal.se/20160404/wikimedia-breaks-copyright-laws-with-pics-of-public-art http://www.thelocal.se/20160404/wikimedia-breaks-copyright-l...
- nxzero 11y agoIf artist are concerned about copyright, then they should make art that can't be copied; take some comfort in knowing Banksy agrees with me, though even then, I'm still have the same opinion.
- kbrosnan 11y agoLest you think that this is some oddity that does not happen in the US it is an issue in Portland, OR. The Portlandia statue [1] sitting in public display and on a public building. The artist retains copyright. Raymond Kaskey, the sculptor, sued the studio that made Body of Evidence which used the statue in the background of some shots and won. While I can understand the artist's desire that the work of art is respected and the high likelihood that chotchkies and such would not pay to use the likeness. It is at conflict with fair use and parody. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portlandia_(statue) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portlandia_(statue)
- doctorOb 11y agoSomething similar happened to Naughty Dog, when they used the MBTA Map in "The Last Of Us"[1]. [1] http://transitmap.net/post/53696766419/boston-theft http://transitmap.net/post/53696766419/boston-theft
- awinter-py 11y agoSony had issues when filming the first spiderman movie; they had to pay likeness rights to landmark buildings (chrysler building, I think) and also had legal trouble over digitally replacing the ads in time square.
- ashmud 11y agoThe Devil's Advocate had a statue that resembled another artist's work. Some of the home releases had the statue edited as a result of the legal case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil's_Advocate_%281997_film%29#Legal_problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil's_Advocate_%281997_f... Comparison of the edits: http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=4057 http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=4057
- dublinben 11y agoAny art paid for with public funds should be in the public domain. It seems like an unfortunate oversight that the artist was allowed to retain copyright here.
- 11y ago
- sheraz 11y agowhy not just move this project outside of the jurisdiction of Sweden?
- vilhelm_s 11y agoIn this case I think it would not help. The project is done by Wikimedia, which has its servers in Floria. But the U.S. version of freedom of panorama is fairly weak (buildings only, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panora... ). With this decision, it seems Sweden will also turn buildings-only. So U.S. courts will recognise the Swedish copyright.
- acd 11y agoBackground there is a Swedish highest court ruling that bans photos of copyrighted art. http://www.thelocal.se/20160404/wikimedia-breaks-copyright-laws-with-pics-of-public-art http://www.thelocal.se/20160404/wikimedia-breaks-copyright-l... It has not been tried in the European court yet so it may not be illegal in EU if the EU court over rules the swedish court.
- briandear 11y agoI find it interesting that many of these types of cases seem to be unique to Europe while the US seems to get the brunt of the copyright criticism. Why is this something artists in Europe sue about? Do they want their work hidden?
- avesanen 11y agoSo, will Ingress be banned in Sweden, as that pretty much does the exactly same thing?
- Karlozkiller 11y agoI was asking the same thing. After thinking about it for a bit and reading more about the case, I think the short answer is no. I think it could be argued that the nature of Ingress and the main purpose of it is NOT to exploit pictures to the public without paying the artist/sculptor in question. However this could obviously be up for debate, and I guess part of it depends on whether anyone sues Google over it. Another important point to make is that the suing party in this case states in their press release, that Wikimedia could just have paid the organization a few 1000 SEK per year (~a few 100 USD) in a license fee and it would all be deemed legal.
- mzs 11y agoI was bored recently and scanned the terms for an amusement park ticket. I gave all rights to my likeness and it was specifically listed that I could not make copies of photos taken by park equipment without explicit permission (I assume when you buy a CD or whatnot you pay for that).
- hugoforte 11y agoSo, do they sue wikipedia next now?
- vilhelm_s 11y agoProbably, unless Wikicommons voluntarily takes down the photos. Apparently, "Wikimedia Sverige will be consulting with our lawyers and Wikimedia Foundation the coming weeks about what this really means and what our options are." (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:FoP-Sweden https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests... )
- brashrat 11y agoWho was the plaintiff in this case? The defendant was Wikimedia! I was curious "who is the plaintiff here" because I didn't see that in the discussion anyplace, so I ran vilhelm_s's helpful link to the decision http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgoranden/2016/2016-04-04%20%C3%96%20849-15%20Beslut.pdf http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgo... through translate.google.com and learned to my horror that the defendant in this case was Wikimedia, not some map/app designer. I could not tell who the plaintiff was, it translates as "Plaintiffs in the district court Image Copyright in Sweden oak. for., 769610-3121 Hornsgatan 103 117 28 Stockholm" I looked at that address on google maps and discovered that it is hard to find the front door of a building in Stockholm.
- vilhelm_s 11y agoBUS (http://bus.se/en http://bus.se/en ). It's a copyright collecting society. That is, if you own the copyright in a visual work, you can assign it to BUS and they will sell the publication rights for you (and take a 20% commission). They also manage some compulsory copyright licence schemes. This is a standard way of managing royalty fees in Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_collective https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_collective ).
- wahsd 11y agoSweden is such a perverse mutation of civilization for so many reasons. This is just one example of a symptom.
- PhasmaFelis 11y agoEvery nation has some weird and unpleasant laws. You're going to have to cite a lot more really weird things about Sweden in particular if you want anyone to take you seriously.
- dave2000 11y agoIn the UK you can get into trouble "publishing" a photo of just about everything
- driverdan 11y agoMods: consider switching this from the original blogspam to Wikimedia's blog post: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/04/strike-against-freedom-panorama/ https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/04/strike-against-freedom...
- caf 11y agoCould they replace the pictures with links to a Google Image Search of the statue's name?
- beedogs 11y agoCopyright law makes absolutely zero sense these days.
- yason 11y agoI am happy to see copyright raising its ugly head in circumstances that might concern the general public as well, not only hackers and hippies in the bit-sharing underground. Maybe in a few decades people will realise it doesn't make any sense. The only thing that remains is that we'll have to stretch this further until it becomes universally absurd.
- drjesusphd 11y ago> Therefore Offentlig Konst can no longer show you a picture of a work of art, even when the artwork is in public ownership, on public display and sited in a public area, Does the same courtesy apply to human beings?