Frederic Schutz | 1 Apr 01:06 2006
Picon

Re: Copyright of the swiss administration

On 3/31/06, dake <dake.cdx <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> I had sent a few months ago a mail to admin.ch to know what was the
> exact license of the official goverment material (pictures and texts).
> Unfortunately, I didn't get an answer hence this post. For example,
> the picture on this page (we all love this site, trust me, it was
> randomly picked up :))
[...]
> I know in France the gov. has a special (non-free) license for such
> contents. In USA, gov. material is mostly P.D as you probably know. It
> would be interesting to have a clear answer to this point for Switzerland.

There is none, at least none in the law; as far as I know, each
department/service can decide whatever they want.

I have been lucky with the Parliament, from which I got the
authorisation to use all the (beautiful) images on their web site
basically as if they were in the public domain (many of them have
since been uploaded to commons, mainly by en:User:Lupo).

With other attempts (in particular concerning with the finding of
documentation about the motto of Switzerland, with the Federal
Military Library), I have had technical problems (people who stopped
working there, follow-up addresses that were incorrect, etc). I should
probably give it a try again soon.

I guess one of the first things that Wikimedia CH could do after it is
born is identify a couple of documents that would be worth having on
Wikipedia, and send an official letter asking for the policy of the
Swiss government.
(Continue reading)

Frederic Schutz | 1 Apr 01:26 2006
Picon

Re: Copyright of the swiss administration

On 3/31/06, dake <dake.cdx <at> gmail.com> wrote:

Obligatory disclaimer first: IANAL, but I have done a bit of research
on this topic.

> You are right about the laws and the protocols. I add there is something
> interesting about swiss law compared to french/belgian law concerning
> the buildings as it seems (my non-professional interpretation) that
> making a picture of a recent building, statue, etc. is allowed while in
> France/Belgium, it is not (see the "Atomium" story).

Clearly allowed in Switzerland if the statue if permanently fixed in a
public place (of course, this is trivially the case for buildings);
see article 27 of the copyright law (231.1) on admin.ch.

> Well, some advices about swiss law in general regarding the copyright
> would be nice. There was a question today on the french wikipedia about
> the flags of cantons, communes and districts. On :fr, we have tons of
> references about the french law, nearly nothing about swiss law, I'm
> trying to collect some references :)

I have tons of references about the Swiss law. Creating an article on
this topic in en: is on my todo list. Give me a reference of the
relevant page on fr: (and maybe some precise questions) and I'll try
to add pointers to what I know as well.

> Well, some advices about swiss law in general regarding the copyright
> would be nice. There was a question today on the french wikipedia about\
> the flags of cantons, communes and districts.

(Continue reading)

dake | 2 Apr 14:23 2006
Picon

Re: Copyright of the swiss administration

> I have tons of references about the Swiss law. Creating an article on
>  this topic in en: is on my todo list. Give me a reference of the 
> relevant page on fr: (and maybe some precise questions) and I'll try
>  to add pointers to what I know as well.

The question about armoiries raised up in the "bistro", section
"poulpisme"
(http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/31_mars_2006)
I actually gave references to 232.21

On Commons, these pictures are marked as "CC-BY-SA-2.0". I am wondering
if this license conflicts with law 232.21

You could probably enhance or integrate the following article :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_of_photographs_in_Switzerland

There are not *so* many questions about pictures in Switzerland (the
swiss community on :fr is still small, most questions came out of my
mind) but we can make a parallel with the questions that are often
raised for France. Those are usually :

* photographies of recent monuments, buildings, architectural work, etc.
* copyright of agencies related to goverment
* copyright and rules when one takes a picture of a known person (there
were some discussions about a picture of Zidane in an airport, one could
consider this as "private" life.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Zidane_Paris_CdG.png)
* screenshots of softwares
* pictures of military buildings (eg for Switzerland :
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bunker-suisse-aviation-p1010146.jpg)
(Continue reading)

Frederic Schutz | 3 Apr 01:09 2006
Picon

Re: Copyright of the swiss administration

dake wrote:

> The question about armoiries raised up in the "bistro", section
> "poulpisme"
> (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/31_mars_2006)
> I actually gave references to 232.21
> 
> On Commons, these pictures are marked as "CC-BY-SA-2.0". I am wondering
> if this license conflicts with law 232.21

It does not. The CC licences (and the criteria for inclusion in commons
in general) are concerned only with the copyright of the images, and
these images are likely to be in the public domain (except for rare
exceptions, as I wrote earlier). The law 232.21 is unrelated; in any
case, it does not restrict copy or modifications of the images.

Here is a similar example. By law, all bank notes are in the public
domain in Switzerland, so one is allowed to make copies of them.
However, it does not mean that one is allowed to copy them in order to
make counterfeit money !

Another example is the combination of trademark and copyright law: a
company's logo may well be in the public domain from the copyright point
of view, meaning that one is allowed to copy it, but it may still be
protected as a trademark, meaning that you can not use it as you wish.

> You could probably enhance or integrate the following article :
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_of_photographs_in_Switzerland

Thanks for the pointer; I missed its creation. It's an excellent start;
(Continue reading)

dake | 3 Apr 01:56 2006
Picon

Re: Copyright of the swiss administration

Damn interesting thread :) (even if IANAL)

> Here is a similar example. By law, all bank notes are in the public
> domain in Switzerland, so one is allowed to make copies of them.
> However, it does not mean that one is allowed to copy them in order to
> make counterfeit money !

What about the "specimen" text above the notes ? Do we have to put it on 
the pictures to avoid the "counterfeit" stuff ?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Swiss_bank_note_security_text.JPG

"Banknotes are not protected by the Swiss Federal Copyright Statute. 
However, individual works reproduced on banknotes are subject to 
copyright protection provided they have not been reproduced recognisably 
as a part of the banknote. The works protected under copyright law may 
only be reproduced and adapted with the permission of the copyright holder."

hmm..this is quite ambiguous. Let's take the example of the 200 note 
with Ramuz. The big photography of Ramuz could be copyrighted, it is a 
recognizable part of the note. If I can scan the whole note, I cannot 
put it with the PD license on Commons.

> No problem from the point of view of copyright.  The photograph could
> still be prosecuted for violation of military secrets, but the bunker on
> the photo above is probably not a secret. There has been a few examples
> (including an appeal just last week) of silly cases where everyone knows
> that a certain building is a hidden military bunker, but mentioning it
> and publishing a picture accompanied by the location is considered a
> violation of military secret.
(Continue reading)

Frederic Schutz | 3 Apr 08:45 2006
Picon

Re: Copyright of the swiss administration

dake wrote:

>> Here is a similar example. By law, all bank notes are in the public
>> domain in Switzerland, so one is allowed to make copies of them.
>> However, it does not mean that one is allowed to copy them in order to
>> make counterfeit money !
> 
> What about the "specimen" text above the notes ? Do we have to put it on 
> the pictures to avoid the "counterfeit" stuff ?

It is not an obligation. It is up to the person who reproduces the
banknote to make sure that the reproduction can not be mistaken for a
real note. Even the Swiss National Bank can not give a definitive answer
on this topic, because it is up to the justice to decide if someone is
counterfeitinging or not. However, they *believe* that if you follow
their guidelines (http://www.snb.ch/e/banknoten/merkblatt_e.pdf: add
"specimen", do not print in the same size as the original, etc) you will
be in the clear. But you may also be in the clear without following
their guidelines, or you may be violating the law even if you follow
them (unlikely, though).

> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Swiss_bank_note_security_text.JPG
> 
> "Banknotes are not protected by the Swiss Federal Copyright Statute. 
> However, individual works reproduced on banknotes are subject to 
> copyright protection provided they have not been reproduced recognisably 
> as a part of the banknote. The works protected under copyright law may 
> only be reproduced and adapted with the permission of the copyright holder."
> 
> hmm..this is quite ambiguous. Let's take the example of the 200 note 
(Continue reading)

Michael Bimmler | 3 Apr 19:39 2006
Picon

As an information

Just to inform you:
There is at the moment quite some talking going on at
http://ch.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bylaws/En  about bylaws (reaction
from ChapCom and the Legal Counsel of WMF)

--
Regards
Michael Bimmler
Delphine Ménard | 5 Apr 15:07 2006
Picon

Re: As an information

On 4/3/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to inform you:
> There is at the moment quite some talking going on at
> http://ch.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bylaws/En  about bylaws (reaction
> from ChapCom and the Legal Counsel of WMF)

I think all is resolved. Thank you for translating the part that we
changed [1] into the other languages so that it is repercuted in the
official translations of the bylaws.

Please inform us when this is done at chaptercommittee-l AT wikimedia
PUNTO org so that we can give our advice to the board and finally be
done with it.

[1]
The Association shares the objectives of the Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc., a not-for-profit organisation based in Florida, USA. The
Wikimedia Foundation coordinates activities along the lines of the
Association's purpose within the international sector, and manages the
name Wikimedia as well as the names of the various international
Wikimedia projects.

Delphine
--
~notafish
Frederic Schutz | 5 Apr 15:38 2006
Picon

Re: As an information

Delphine Ménard wrote:

> I think all is resolved. Thank you for translating the part that we
> changed [1] into the other languages so that it is repercuted in the
> official translations of the bylaws.

I have updated the English version of the bylaws already.

> Please inform us when this is done at chaptercommittee-l AT wikimedia
> PUNTO org so that we can give our advice to the board and finally be
> done with it.

I will try to finish the French translation ASAP.

Frédéric
Jürg Wolf | 5 Apr 16:09 2006
Picon

Re: As an information

Hi

Just some questions about something, that maybe is discussed before, while
defining this section:

* While Wikimedia CH _SHARES_ the objectives of the Wikimedia Foundation _FULLY_
(not only in parts), do we have the right to discuss and form these objectives
actively or do we have to take whatever the Foundation decides, including a
total change of goals and as a extreme a total commerzialisation?

* If the Foundation decides something like this and the Swiss Chapter does not
share this objective, what options do we have then?

* Ist this wording a MUST if we want to be a Chapter of Wikimedia or can we opt
out in some subjects?

* If we have a different point of view than the Foundation, the wording says,
that we have nearly no rights to oppose against these subjects, because we HAVE
TO SHARE the objectives of the Foundation. My fear is, that we would become a
simple puppet of the foundation (nothing against it by now!) instead of a
self-contained association.

* As a possible szenario (just in my mind by now - but not in reach), our
association also want to support other software than the Wikimedia software,
what the Foundation could stop by this wording. And we have no chance to do
something against this directive.

I know, these questions can only be asked by a person out of a direct democratic
structure, but as I read the posting, those thoughts rose in my mind. 

(Continue reading)


Gmane