Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg
File:Christoph_Meili_1997.jpg[edit]
While the picture doesn't pass the theshold of originality of Switzerland, it probably passes the US threshold of originality. Trycatch (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep If Commons is going to apply US law to Swiss photos, all photos of copyrighted statues in Switzerland (and Germany etcetera) would have to go. But this is a photo first published in Switzerland. And that is where the photographer had to sue. And lost. She did not sue in other countries, probably because of legal advice that said there was no point in doing so. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment - doesn't the US have the rule of the least term or something? If so, if published in Switzerland, and PD in Switzerland, it becomes PD in the US. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not really, see en:Rule of the shorter term#Situation in the United States. But this image is not protected at all in Switzerland, and the situation is comparable to {{PD-Afghanistan}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- The situation has nothing to do with {{PD-Afghanistan}}. Works of Afghanistan are free, because 1) Afghanistan has no copyright law 2) there are no international copyright treaties between the US and Afghanistan. Switzerland situation is completely different. In Bridgeman v. Corel the issue of copyrightability was decided under the US threshold of originality, so this picture can hardly be free in the US. Trycatch (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- However, we generally assume works that are free in the source country to be free worldwide. The US law has (i.e.) no regulation that says that official documents of the swiss government, such as laws or currency, are free of copyright. But they're supposed to be free in the US, too. Otherwise we'd had to delete about all images of non-US currency, as they're not explicitly declared to be free in US law. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- We most certainly do not assume works that are free in the source country to be free worldwide. That would be in direct contradiction to article 5(2) of the Berne Convention. I don't know whether this image would or would not be considered copyrighted in the U.S. If the photographer sued somebody for copyright violation on this image in a U.S. court, I see basically two possibilities: either the court would apply only U.S. law, consider the image to pass the threshold of originality (that much is IMO clear), and consider it copyrighted; or it might apply Swiss law to determine the copyright owner, find that the image was not copyrightable in Switzerland and therefore had no copyright owner, and thus deny the photographer's standing to sue at all. Which way a verdict would go is anyone's guess. Because of this I had uploaded the image at the English Wikipedia under a "fair use" claim. Lupo 15:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Clear is that the photographer did not sue the BBC in the UK or in the US. This isue is economically important to Swiss photographers, and I would assume that they would have asked for legal advice on their chances in foreign courts. Which probably was not encouraging legal action. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Speculating about why the Swiss photographer chose to sue the BBC in a Swiss court is moot and rather besides the point. The question for us is just "what does that result in a Swiss court mean for the image's status in the U.S.?" Lupo 16:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Clear is that the photographer did not sue the BBC in the UK or in the US. This isue is economically important to Swiss photographers, and I would assume that they would have asked for legal advice on their chances in foreign courts. Which probably was not encouraging legal action. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- We most certainly do not assume works that are free in the source country to be free worldwide. That would be in direct contradiction to article 5(2) of the Berne Convention. I don't know whether this image would or would not be considered copyrighted in the U.S. If the photographer sued somebody for copyright violation on this image in a U.S. court, I see basically two possibilities: either the court would apply only U.S. law, consider the image to pass the threshold of originality (that much is IMO clear), and consider it copyrighted; or it might apply Swiss law to determine the copyright owner, find that the image was not copyrightable in Switzerland and therefore had no copyright owner, and thus deny the photographer's standing to sue at all. Which way a verdict would go is anyone's guess. Because of this I had uploaded the image at the English Wikipedia under a "fair use" claim. Lupo 15:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- However, we generally assume works that are free in the source country to be free worldwide. The US law has (i.e.) no regulation that says that official documents of the swiss government, such as laws or currency, are free of copyright. But they're supposed to be free in the US, too. Otherwise we'd had to delete about all images of non-US currency, as they're not explicitly declared to be free in US law. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- The situation has nothing to do with {{PD-Afghanistan}}. Works of Afghanistan are free, because 1) Afghanistan has no copyright law 2) there are no international copyright treaties between the US and Afghanistan. Switzerland situation is completely different. In Bridgeman v. Corel the issue of copyrightability was decided under the US threshold of originality, so this picture can hardly be free in the US. Trycatch (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not really, see en:Rule of the shorter term#Situation in the United States. But this image is not protected at all in Switzerland, and the situation is comparable to {{PD-Afghanistan}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep It seems to me and also to Lupo (see his comment above starting with "We most certainly ...") that nobody really knows what approach a US court is likely to take. All we're doing is just speculating pointlessly.
I have to say I think the particular image here is extremely valuable to the Commons project. It is obviously a unique and irreplaceable image, and seems an excellent fit with Commons's educational goals and especially useful in any case where we need to explain Swiss copyright law. In this instance, a picture paints a thousand words. 85.94.184.115 17:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep There are several other cases where pictures are allowed on Commons based on particular terms of copyright in the countries the originate from (for example photos tagged "PD-Sweden-photo"), so I see no reason why the same principle couldn't be used for Swiss photos. /FredrikT (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nomination. --High Contrast (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg[edit]
While this is free in Switzerland as {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} it is not free in the US and as COM:L requires images to be free in both the source country and the US this needs to be deleted. LGA talkedits 08:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- You would then have to question likely all images using {{PD-Switzerland-photo}}. --Túrelio (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not all by any means, some others need to be reviewed, but a lot that would just need {{PD-Art}} adding to be covered in the US. LGA talkedits 12:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete Per Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc.: "Although the toys enjoyed no copyright protection under Japanese law, they fell within the class of "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" covered by § 102(a)(5) of the Act. See § 101. Since the toys were authored by a Japanese national and first "published" (i.e. sold) in Japan, they enjoyed copyright protection under United States law from the moment they were created, see § 302(a), by virtue of both § 104(b) of the Act and Article II(1) of the U.C.C." and Article 5 (2) of the Berne Convention, which prevents countries from letting the threshold of originality of another country influence the copyright status in the country where protection is claimed. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
It's a never ending story with this photo, isn't it? First uploaded in 2006, deleted a few months later, uploaded again and deleted in October 2010, restored in 2011 per undeletion request, deleted and restored again in 2013 ;-) That said, although the photo has no copyright protection whatsoever in Switzerland (as the highest Swiss court ruled in the specific case of this photo), it's probably protected in the US indeed, so it does seem to go against Commons policy. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete One cannot assume that a court ruling of this nature can apply worldwide, per the precautionary principle. I've reuploaded the image as non-free to the English Wikipedia. ViperSnake151 (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
