Myndaspjall:Krisstjáneldjá.jpg
The image is copied from answers.com, it is a mirror from en.wikipedia.org, File:Kristjaneldjarn.jpg (log), which was deleted as an orphaned fair use picture. With this source the image does not fulfill the claimed pd-rational, additionally this rational is not documented anywhere and it is questionable if it is correct according to Icelandic legislation. --Martin H. (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the photo was certainly taken more than 25 years ago, that much is indubitable and not a matter of dispute for the simple reason that Kristján Eldjárn died in 1982. The Icelandic copyright law is here; the article cited is nr. 49 and it states that a non-artistic photo is protected for 50 years after first publication; however, you will notice that there is a footnote and a link to this page which details the changes made to the law on February 28, 2006. These changes included extending the protection from 25 years to 50 years. So in until February 28, 2006 the protection was only 25 years. Again, that much is indubitable. Now, this photo was originally uploaded in 2005 and was not, at the time, protected (as it was in fact taken well before 1982, his presidency ended in 1980). Furthermore, there is no mention of the emendation to the law being retroactive, and so, presumably, any and all photos that were not protected and copied before 2006 are still not protected. Of course, an Icelandic court of law is the only authority that could refute this. But you would have to argue either that the emendation to the law was meant to be, or at any rate is retroactive; or, alternatively, you could argue that this isn't a non-artistic photo. --Cessator 7. febrúar 2011 kl. 18:45 (UTC)
- Just noted that we already have this image on Commons, File:Kristján Eldjárn (1982).jpg, so I guess the appropriate venue for my concern will be a discussion on Commons. Its actually two problems for me: 1) just because an image shows someone from Exampleland does not mean that the photo was published in Exampleland and that Exampleland is the country of origin. But given the reference in File:Kristján Eldjárn (1982).jpg it maybe is reasonable to assume that this is not an image from the international press but an Icelandic image. 2) Your last point is my main concern, and maybe you know something about it? What is artistic and what is non-artistic, are there any references in the law or court cases? The rational comes from the law, of course. But I guess that the use of the rational for uploads is not based on caselaw or on judicial decisions but comes only from uploaders who got their inspiration from the use of the most elaborated commons:Template:PD-Sweden or the lesser elaborated and lesser used commons:Template:PD-Norway50 or commons:Template:PD-Denmark50. Especially photographs first published in Sweden must have fulfill high criterions to be considered artistic enough for the full protection terms, my guess is that this was an inspiration to use the Icelandic copyright the same way. Iceland is however not Sweden, the interpretation of 'non-artistic' maybe is completely different, so my fear is that it for example not covers portrait photography and we use it wrong. --Martin H. 8. febrúar 2011 kl. 01:06 (UTC)
- If a portrait were an artistic photo, then what would count as non-artistic? If the bar is set that low, then all photos become artistic photos. But then that obviates the necessity for a clause concerning non-artistic photos in the first place. In ohter words, if all photos, even portraits, were artisitc photos, then there wouldn't have been a reason for including a clause about non-artistic photos and hence the very presence of such a clause more or less proves that some significant portion of all photos are non-artistic in nature, in other words that the bar must be set higher than for e.g. a mere portrait. Anyway, the Scandinavian countries are the countries that the Icelandic legislature primarily looks to for inspiration and to which it wants to compare itself. If a portrait is a non-artistic photo in Sweden, odds are that it is in Iceland too. Of course, only an Icelandic court can decide the matter, but surely no one is planning on that to happen. As for the place of publication, it seems overwhelmingly likely that it was in Iceland, but I have to admit I don't have a date for you. --Cessator 8. febrúar 2011 kl. 02:48 (UTC)
- Just noted that we already have this image on Commons, File:Kristján Eldjárn (1982).jpg, so I guess the appropriate venue for my concern will be a discussion on Commons. Its actually two problems for me: 1) just because an image shows someone from Exampleland does not mean that the photo was published in Exampleland and that Exampleland is the country of origin. But given the reference in File:Kristján Eldjárn (1982).jpg it maybe is reasonable to assume that this is not an image from the international press but an Icelandic image. 2) Your last point is my main concern, and maybe you know something about it? What is artistic and what is non-artistic, are there any references in the law or court cases? The rational comes from the law, of course. But I guess that the use of the rational for uploads is not based on caselaw or on judicial decisions but comes only from uploaders who got their inspiration from the use of the most elaborated commons:Template:PD-Sweden or the lesser elaborated and lesser used commons:Template:PD-Norway50 or commons:Template:PD-Denmark50. Especially photographs first published in Sweden must have fulfill high criterions to be considered artistic enough for the full protection terms, my guess is that this was an inspiration to use the Icelandic copyright the same way. Iceland is however not Sweden, the interpretation of 'non-artistic' maybe is completely different, so my fear is that it for example not covers portrait photography and we use it wrong. --Martin H. 8. febrúar 2011 kl. 01:06 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
