3 ms·

No. 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 ment

No. 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
If you enter 'statue' in the search, it'll give you a list of famous statues. If you click any of them, you are shown the artwork together with a description. This seems to fit the description of a 'database' given elsewhere in this thread, but it may be that some detail in the law allows things like this. Perhaps because it is a database that contains other things than art as well.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Its free. Maybe that's the difference.
- hjnilsson 11y ago
  That is the same argument that typing "Avengers 3 torrent" in Google Search gives download links, so Google are liable for copyright infringement the same way Pirate Bay is. While technically true, there is a diference in intent here that needs to be taken into consideration.
  - Too 11y ago
    No, Google themselves are providing Street view, the maps and taking the all the photos.
- Trombone12 11y ago
  That's a good point, I didn't know about that functionality. I'm not sure the distinction that the database also contains other, unrelated, data and photos matter in this case. Certainly the database that google has backing its mapping service has commercial value in a much more obvious way compared to the wikimedia public artwork database. I guess that the licensing agency either didn't know of this function, or else started with the easier target. My baseless guess for the outcome if they sue google is that google would win on jurisdictional grounds after five years of battle.
Ma8ee 11y ago
It's an unusually badly written law: § 24 Works of art may be reproduced 1. if they are permanently located on or at a public place outdoors, 2. if the purpose is to advertise an exhibition and sale of works of art, but only to the extent necessary to promote the exhibition or sales, or 3. if they are part of a collection, in catalogs, but not in digital form.
- thomasahle 11y ago
  Interesting. To me that reads like I can reproduce the art as soon as any of the three points is true. In that case the exception in the third point wouldn't matter, because we already have permission by the first point. I wonder if lawyers have a specific way of reading it though..
  - hjnilsson 11y ago
    Laws are read in order of specificity. So the most restrictive law takes precedence. For example. In the sentence above, depictions in a catalogue is more specific than any depiction in a public place, so that takes precedence. (And in general, the constitution takes precedence over all other laws) As you may realise. There is a huge room for interpretation in the specificity, which is why we have courts & judges that settle these matters.

thomasahle 11y ago

If you enter 'statue' in the search, it'll give you a list of famous statues. If you click any of them, you are shown the artwork together with a description. This seems to fit the description of a 'database' given elsewhere in this thread, but it may be that some detail in the law allows things like this. Perhaps because it is a database that contains other things than art as well.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Its free. Maybe that's the difference.
hjnilsson 11y ago
That is the same argument that typing "Avengers 3 torrent" in Google Search gives download links, so Google are liable for copyright infringement the same way Pirate Bay is. While technically true, there is a diference in intent here that needs to be taken into consideration.
- Too 11y ago
  No, Google themselves are providing Street view, the maps and taking the all the photos.
Trombone12 11y ago
That's a good point, I didn't know about that functionality. I'm not sure the distinction that the database also contains other, unrelated, data and photos matter in this case. Certainly the database that google has backing its mapping service has commercial value in a much more obvious way compared to the wikimedia public artwork database. I guess that the licensing agency either didn't know of this function, or else started with the easier target. My baseless guess for the outcome if they sue google is that google would win on jurisdictional grounds after five years of battle.

Ma8ee 11y ago

It's an unusually badly written law: § 24 Works of art may be reproduced 1. if they are permanently located on or at a public place outdoors, 2. if the purpose is to advertise an exhibition and sale of works of art, but only to the extent necessary to promote the exhibition or sales, or 3. if they are part of a collection, in catalogs, but not in digital form.

thomasahle 11y ago
Interesting. To me that reads like I can reproduce the art as soon as any of the three points is true. In that case the exception in the third point wouldn't matter, because we already have permission by the first point. I wonder if lawyers have a specific way of reading it though..
- hjnilsson 11y ago
  Laws are read in order of specificity. So the most restrictive law takes precedence. For example. In the sentence above, depictions in a catalogue is more specific than any depiction in a public place, so that takes precedence. (And in general, the constitution takes precedence over all other laws) As you may realise. There is a huge room for interpretation in the specificity, which is why we have courts & judges that settle these matters.