Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands
De minimis[edit]
Op deze pagina en op het artikel COM:De minimis ontbreekt tekst over de regelgeving in Nederland. De Nederlandse wetgeving kent wel een de minimis, artikel 18a auteurswet: Graag reacties, Elly (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Uitstekende omschrijving Martsniez (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Martsniez: dank je wel voor je steun, bovendien bijzonder aardig van je. Ellywa (talk) 09:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Tekst voorstellen:
NL versie[edit]
In de Nederlandse auteurswet is een bepaling opgenomen die van toepassing is als het auteursrecht niet of nauwelijks in het geding is. Dit wordt aangeduid met de de minimus- of bagatel-beperking. Op grond hiervan is het toegestaan werken van anderen te verwerken in een eigen werk, indien die verwerking ‘incidenteel’ en van ‘ondergeschikte betekenis’ is. Het begrip ‘incidentele verwerking’ betekent dat de verwerking min of meer toevallig plaatsvindt. Het begrip ‘ondergeschikte betekenis’ wil zeggen dat het gaat om een bescheiden onderdeel van het nieuwe werk. In de memorie van toelichting staat dat het vooral gaat om gebruik van beeldmateriaal, zoals een filmreportage waarbij terloops een winkelgevel, een reclame-uiting, een auto of een muurschildering in beeld komt. Het gaat dus om toevalligheden. De memorie van toelichting gaat verder met: Bij het verwerken van bepaalde, weloverwogen gekozen geluidsfragmenten in een nieuw muziekwerk, is de beperking echter niet van toepassing.
Letterlijk luidt artikel 18a uit de auteurswet:
- Artikel 18a geeft de volgende uitzondering op het auteursrecht: Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst wordt niet beschouwd de incidentele verwerking ervan als onderdeel van ondergeschikte betekenis in een ander werk.
Bronnen[edit]
- Auteurswet art. 18a, ingevoerd in 2004.
- https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-28482-3.html memorie van toelichting bij wetsvoorstel, pag. 52 en 53]
- Lexology.com
- Kort begrip van het intellectuele eigendomsrecht. Citaat uit dit boek: Art. 18a Aw kan als een restbepaling worden gezien die verzekert dat het auteursrecht ook buiten de hiervoor besproken gevallen geen ongerechtvaardigde belemmering vormt voor de uitingsvrijheid, indien de door het auteursrecht beschermde belangen daarbij niet of nauwelijks in het geding zijn. Om die reden wordt art. 18a Aw wel als de ‘de minimis’- of bagatel-beperking aangeduid. Het artikel bepaalt dat het is toegestaan werken van anderen te verwerken in een eigen werk, indien die verwerking ‘incidenteel’ en van ‘ondergeschikte betekenis’ is. Deze bepaling is gebaseerd op art. 5 lid .Auteursrechtrichtlijn en is bedoeld voor situaties waarin een werk terloops in beeld komt, waarbij met name kan worden gedacht aan bouwwerken, werken van beeldende kunst, schilderijen of muurschilderingen. Met het begrip ‘incidentele verwerking’ wordt gedoeld op een verwerking die min of meer toevallig plaatsvindt. Het begrip ‘ondergeschikte betekenis’ ziet op verwerkingen die een bescheiden onderdeel vormen van het nieuwe werk en waarmee niet een vergroting van de economische waarde van het werk wordt beoogd
Engelse versie[edit]
The law of the Netherlands includes an article devoted to a situation where the copyright is not or barely relevant. This is called de minimus or bagatel. Based on this article, it is allowed to include work of other persons in an own work, but only if it is incidental or of minor significance. "Incidental" means that the presence of the copyrighted work is more or less by chance. Of minor significance means the copyrighted work is a small part of the work.
Translated text from Art.18 of the Auteurswet of the Netherlands:
- The incidental processing of a copyrighted work as a part of minor significance in another work is not considered an infringement of the copyright of the first mentioned work.
Sources[edit]
Tot slot[edit]
Aangezien op deze tekstvoorstellen geen verdere reacties zijn gekomen na bespreking in de Kroeg, zal ik het in het beleid verwerken. Zie voor het overleg: Commons:De_Kroeg/Archive/2021#De_minimis. Ellywa (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Stamps and URAA[edit]
Stamps created prior to 1989 are PD 70 years after creation, but doesn't URAA apply for hosting on Commons? —holly {chat} 18:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi holly, yes... this might be a problem. Commons:Hirtle chart shows a overview of the rules. It all depends on publication date and copyright notice. Ellywa (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Why should we drag ourselves into the URAA swamp? The WMF Board once said: "The WMF does not support the URAA." [...] "The WMF does not plan to remove any content unless it has actual knowledge of infringement or receives a valid DMCA takedown notice." And: URAA should not be the sole reason to remove content from Commons. I notice a tendency in Commons to be far more strict re URAA than years ago. Do we know what the current stance of the WMF towards URAA is? Vysotsky (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's a miss-characterization of their position. Even if it wasn't though there's still the whole "if the end result of a copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under U.S. or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle" thing that sort of mandates files be deleted if they copyrighted due to the URAA anyway. Plus it would be ridiculous to never delete files that clearly violate copyright just because it's complicated or someone from the board said something negative about the URAA once. That's not how the project works and users from the United States have as much right then anyone from another country to use a file without having to worry about violating someone's copyright. But screw users from the United States just because the URAA is convoluted I guess. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Vysotsky: The WMF may not support the URAA, but it's US law and our servers are located in the US. —holly {chat} 17:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- In the case of stamps, I assume they have all been published at the time of their appearance in the USA. When stamp collection was fashionable I possessed various stamp catelogues showing images of stamps. So it is highly probable the stamps are in PD in the USA as well. So perhaps no problem at all. Ellywa (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Do you remember if any of those catalogs were published in the US? EDIT: Actually, that doesn't matter except in the case of simultaneous publication (in which case the catalog's copyright needed to be renewed) because you still get 95 years protection in the US. —holly {chat} 19:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is immaterial whether or not the stamp was listed in a US catalogue, the copyright still belonged to the Dutch Post Office and if I make a copy of a Dutch stamp, then the rules of copyright apply to the stamp itself, not to a copy of the stamp made by a third party. Furthermore, mst stamp catalogues that I have seen were printed in black and whit, while most stamps are printed in colour. Even if my earlier assertion were wroing, the catalogue cannot therefore claim to have copyright over a colour image. Martinvl (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- You misunderstood: I know perfectly well thaTwo points the catalog company would not have a copyright on the stamp. What I meant was, if a US catalog included a foreign stamp in it, that would count as publication, which would help determine the copyright status in the US. —holly {chat} 01:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Three points - it would not have been a "Publication" of the original because it would have been in black and white, not colour. Secondly, the stamps would almost certainly have been "seen" in the US before the catalogue was published, unless of course no post was sent from the Netherlands to the US before the publication of the catalogue (unlikely). Thirdly, copyright law would apply to the catalogue as a whole: excerpts from copyright articles are usually permitted. (My local library says 10% maximum which is much more than the space devoted to an individual stamp). Martinvl (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I know the 10% thing applies to text, not images. Otherwise we could just copy things like full color high deff scans of copyrighted paintings from books and upload them whole cloth since they only take up a single page. That's not really how it works though. The work here would be the stamp, not the book. So you'd have to copy only 10% of the stamp for it to be free of copyright. Assuming the rule even applies to imaged to begin with. But then of course no one is going to do that. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- First the 10% guideline (not rule). The notice regarding the guideline sopecifically singles out Ordnance Suvey Maps as an area where the guideline applies. Secondly, the stamp catalogue company do not and have never owned teh copyright regarding the individual stamps that they illustrate. Depending on the origin of the stamps. They might have paid the owner of the copyright a royalty for using the illustration. They do however have a copyright over the entire book as a collection of images and supporting text.
- As far as I know the 10% thing applies to text, not images. Otherwise we could just copy things like full color high deff scans of copyrighted paintings from books and upload them whole cloth since they only take up a single page. That's not really how it works though. The work here would be the stamp, not the book. So you'd have to copy only 10% of the stamp for it to be free of copyright. Assuming the rule even applies to imaged to begin with. But then of course no one is going to do that. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Three points - it would not have been a "Publication" of the original because it would have been in black and white, not colour. Secondly, the stamps would almost certainly have been "seen" in the US before the catalogue was published, unless of course no post was sent from the Netherlands to the US before the publication of the catalogue (unlikely). Thirdly, copyright law would apply to the catalogue as a whole: excerpts from copyright articles are usually permitted. (My local library says 10% maximum which is much more than the space devoted to an individual stamp). Martinvl (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- You misunderstood: I know perfectly well thaTwo points the catalog company would not have a copyright on the stamp. What I meant was, if a US catalog included a foreign stamp in it, that would count as publication, which would help determine the copyright status in the US. —holly {chat} 01:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is immaterial whether or not the stamp was listed in a US catalogue, the copyright still belonged to the Dutch Post Office and if I make a copy of a Dutch stamp, then the rules of copyright apply to the stamp itself, not to a copy of the stamp made by a third party. Furthermore, mst stamp catalogues that I have seen were printed in black and whit, while most stamps are printed in colour. Even if my earlier assertion were wroing, the catalogue cannot therefore claim to have copyright over a colour image. Martinvl (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Do you remember if any of those catalogs were published in the US? EDIT: Actually, that doesn't matter except in the case of simultaneous publication (in which case the catalog's copyright needed to be renewed) because you still get 95 years protection in the US. —holly {chat} 19:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- In the case of stamps, I assume they have all been published at the time of their appearance in the USA. When stamp collection was fashionable I possessed various stamp catelogues showing images of stamps. So it is highly probable the stamps are in PD in the USA as well. So perhaps no problem at all. Ellywa (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Vysotsky: The WMF may not support the URAA, but it's US law and our servers are located in the US. —holly {chat} 17:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's a miss-characterization of their position. Even if it wasn't though there's still the whole "if the end result of a copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under U.S. or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle" thing that sort of mandates files be deleted if they copyrighted due to the URAA anyway. Plus it would be ridiculous to never delete files that clearly violate copyright just because it's complicated or someone from the board said something negative about the URAA once. That's not how the project works and users from the United States have as much right then anyone from another country to use a file without having to worry about violating someone's copyright. But screw users from the United States just because the URAA is convoluted I guess. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Why should we drag ourselves into the URAA swamp? The WMF Board once said: "The WMF does not support the URAA." [...] "The WMF does not plan to remove any content unless it has actual knowledge of infringement or receives a valid DMCA takedown notice." And: URAA should not be the sole reason to remove content from Commons. I notice a tendency in Commons to be far more strict re URAA than years ago. Do we know what the current stance of the WMF towards URAA is? Vysotsky (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)