
The Illegal Map of Swedish Art - chippy
http://googlemapsmania.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-illegal-map-of-swedish-art.html
======
belorn
Reading 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.

~~~
hjnilsson
This court decision is a result of the change of law that in part was
motivated to happened to get piracy back in 2005. When it was amended there
were many, many more restrictions placed on digital distribution than before.
The law in question explicitly say "Artwork can be depicted if contained in a
collection or catalogue, but not in digital form". So a book detailing famous
art is allowed, but a website doing the same is not.

This also means it is not illegal to post Facebook photos with a statue. Since
clearly that is not a database, just a random photo.

The paragraph in question:
[https://lagen.nu/1960:729#P24S1](https://lagen.nu/1960:729#P24S1)]

And the full law:
[http://rinfo.stage.lagrummet.se//publ/sfs/2005:359/pdf,sv](http://rinfo.stage.lagrummet.se//publ/sfs/2005:359/pdf,sv)

(This law - 2005:359 - is also the law that added the "data tax" in Sweden of
0,4 kronor per MB.)

~~~
vilhelm_s
The decision from the supreme court is available online:
[http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgo...](http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgoranden/2016/2016-04-04%20%C3%96%20849-15%20Beslut.pdf)

As I understand it, actually the sentence that you quote, §24(3), is not
relevant in this case. §24 provides three exceptions to the general system of
copyright, and this case turns on §24(1), which says "artwork can be depicted
if they are permanently placed in a public place outdoors".

So, it would naively seem that photos of public art are not copyright
protected. However, the court reasoned that the word "depict" does not cover
the act of publicizing the pictures in an open database. They reason based on
what kind of use they think the legislators had in mind when passing the law:
they think it is intended to allow taking photos of streets, and selling
postcards of sculptures, but that a database has more commercial value than a
postcard, and therefore the legislators did not intend that to be included in
the term...

~~~
tobr
How do you determine what commercial value something has? Apparently not by
whether it costs money or not. The map is offered for free, without ads.
Postcards are usually for pay.

~~~
vilhelm_s
They don't say anything about how to determine the value. In general, it seems
to me that this decision will create a lot of uncertainty about what is
copyrighted and what is free.

They do say that the test is whether someone _could_ sell it for money, so the
fact that in this case Wikimedia is a non-profit and does it for free does not
affect the outcome.

------
kbrosnan
Lest 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_\(statue\))

~~~
dublinben
Any 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.

~~~
dalke
There are many ways around that. Instead of buying the artwork, it could be on
a 99 year lease. Or a museum wins a bid to host the artists exhibition for 10
years.

Another question - is there some threshold which triggers the switch to public
domain? Eg, if the public pays for 10% of the cost, through taxes, and private
donators pay for the rest, then is it still placed in the public domain?

I agree - I think the Portlandia case should not have let the artist keep that
restriction on use. But I think it should be done as part of the contract,
rather than a blanket rule that any public funds => public domain.

------
yason
I 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.

------
driverdan
Mods: consider switching this from the original blogspam to Wikimedia's blog
post: [https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/04/strike-against-
freedom...](https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/04/strike-against-freedom-
panorama/)

------
JoeAltmaier
The 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
There 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
This 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?

~~~
vilhelm_s
Hm, 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_U...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama#European_Union)),
but maybe there are some subtleties.

~~~
Freak_NL
From 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)

~~~
vilhelm_s
That makes sense, but it would mean that the EU directive does not override
national law, right? So it would not be helpful in Sweden.

------
mzs
I 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).

------
thomasahle
Does this also make Goole Street View illegal?

~~~
hjnilsson
No. The law in question explicitly allows depictions of building, they are
seen as separate from artwork.

~~~
Ma8ee
Street View depicts other things than building. The following example is
almost certainly illegal:

[https://goo.gl/maps/3KCxh5LRs3B2](https://goo.gl/maps/3KCxh5LRs3B2)

~~~
hjnilsson
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
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.

~~~
hjnilsson
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
No, Google themselves are providing Street view, the maps and taking the all
the photos.

------
LoSboccacc
current 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.

~~~
Trombone12
No, 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/Avgo...](http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgoranden/2016/2016-04-04%20%C3%96%20849-15%20Beslut.pdf)

------
brashrat
Who 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/Avgo...](http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgoranden/2016/2016-04-04%20%C3%96%20849-15%20Beslut.pdf)

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
BUS ([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)
).

------
aub3bhat
Related: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136945/Absurd-
new-E...](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)

~~~
Loque
dailymail 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-dos...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1296282/I-dosing-
How-teenagers-getting-digitally-high-music-download-internet.html)

------
acd
Background there is a Swedish highest court ruling that bans photos of
copyrighted art. [http://www.thelocal.se/20160404/wikimedia-breaks-
copyright-l...](http://www.thelocal.se/20160404/wikimedia-breaks-copyright-
laws-with-pics-of-public-art)

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.

------
ptaipale
Related: [http://www.thelocal.se/20160404/wikimedia-breaks-
copyright-l...](http://www.thelocal.se/20160404/wikimedia-breaks-copyright-
laws-with-pics-of-public-art)

------
poof_he_is_gone
The 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.

------
caf
Could they replace the pictures with links to a Google Image Search of the
statue's name?

------
hitlin37
The current headline is ambiguous. The blog is about copyright law around the
map website.

------
drjesusphd
> 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?

------
briandear
I 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?

------
nxzero
If 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.

------
studentrob
Now I'm curious to see photos of said mapped artwork..

------
hapidjus
I'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.

------
beedogs
Copyright law makes absolutely zero sense these days.

------
hugoforte
So, do they sue wikipedia next now?

~~~
vilhelm_s
Probably, 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...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:FoP-
Sweden) )﻿

------
dave2000
In the UK you can get into trouble "publishing" a photo of just about
everything

------
avesanen
So, will Ingress be banned in Sweden, as that pretty much does the exactly
same thing?

~~~
Karlozkiller
I 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.

------
sheraz
why not just move this project outside of the jurisdiction of Sweden?

~~~
vilhelm_s
In 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_panora...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States)
). With this decision, it seems Sweden will also turn buildings-only. So U.S.
courts will recognise the Swedish copyright.

------
wahsd
Sweden is such a perverse mutation of civilization for so many reasons. This
is just one example of a symptom.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Every 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.

