Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Bosnia and Herzegovina

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Freedom of Panorama

[edit]

Freedom of panorama is OK in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this case, Wikimedia has misinterpreted the Copyright Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 2010. That should be corrected as soon as possible, as there is no legal basis for deletion of photos.

The Article 52 of the law clearly reads:

(1) The free use of the works permanently located in squares, parks, streets or other places accessible by the public shall be permitted.
(2) The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage.
(3) In the case of the use referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article, the source and authorship must be indicated if they are indicated on the work used.

The restriction to the free use of the works permanently located in squares, parks, streets or other places accessible by the public in the Paragraph 2 only applies to reproductions in three-dimensional form. For instance, it is prohibited to make a scale model of a copyrighted work to sell it in order to make a profit. However, photographs don't fall in the category of three-dimensional form. If such photographs were prohibited for the free use, that would have been said in the Article 52 in a separate paragraph, or the Paragraph 2 would have read "shall not be reproduced in two or three-dimensional form" instead of "shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form." My-wiki-photos (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @My-wiki-photos: I disagree. Para (2) prohibits three types of use: 3D reproduction; same purpose as the original; commercial. If it applied only to 3D reproductions it would be worded as "3D reproductions are allowed but shall not be used for the same purpose as the original or for profit". Aymatth2 (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Aymatth2: That is nonsense. It is already said that the free use is allowed in the Paragraph 1. That's why the Paragraph 2 describes what is not allowed for 3D reproductions. My-wiki-photos (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @My-wiki-photos: Paragraph (1) says free use is permitted. Paragraph (2) then defines exceptions: not 3D copies; not for the same purpose; not for commercial gain. @Clindberg: Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Aymatth2: First of all, I am a native Bosnian speaker, have read the law in its originality, and very well understand that "used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage" refers to "shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form." If "shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form" stood alone in the Paragraph 2, without the above-mentioned attachment after the comma, that would make no sense whatsoever. Why? It's just because no one could prevent me from making a scale model for my personal use. That kind of rule would have been unenforceable, and therefore meaningless. The meaning of the Paragraph 2 is simple: You can't make a replica to use it for the same purpose as the original work, or make a scale model to sell it and make a profit. Do not make assumptions on the meaning of the Paragraph 2, adding something what is not there. There are numerous examples where photographs from Bosnia and Herzegovina are used for commercial purposes. Even Google uses them. The fact that Wikimedia has misinterpreted this law saying there's no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina is just laughable. You'll even find modern printed postcards of Bosnia and Herzegovina if you look for them. You're going to find them even though they are dying out in this era of digital photography. My-wiki-photos (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Bosnian version of paragraph (2) reads:
            "(2) Djela iz stava (1) ovog člana ne smiju se reproducirati u trodimenzionalnom obliku, upotrijebiti za istu namjeru kao izvorno djelo ​ili upotrijebiti za ostvarivanje imovinske koristi.",
which Google translates as
"(2) The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article may not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work or used to obtain material gain."
We have to assume that this means what it says, and that there are three separate restrictions. The fact that some commercial images violate this law is irrelevant. Restrictions on freedom of panorama are annoying but we must respect them. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least in the English translation, the key word is the "or" in the phrase "shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage". That means that only one of the three conditions in that list need be true for there to be a problem (for us). In other words, if a work is either 1) reproduced in three-dimensional form, or 2) used for the same purpose as the original work, or 3) used to obtain material gain, then they are disqualified from the exception. This is not the original Bosnian, of course, but are you saying the original does not use the word "or"? The "or" makes more sense in that translation as well, as "used for the same purpose as the original work" would cover 2-D reproductions of 2-D works (ones that amount more to a copy, like a photo of another photo cropped mostly to the original). That type of restriction is typically required by the Berne Convention (usages allowed by this type exception must not prejudice the original work, no matter the type), and it makes little sense to combine that condition with the three-dimensional restriction. If a series of conditions is joined by the word "and", then all need to be true for the condition to hold. The word "or" is very, very different. Reading English legalese, it is pretty plain that there is a non-commercial restriction on this type of work. If the third condition (or the second) was meant to be joined with the first, there would be the word "and" in there somewhere. The lack of a comma before the "or" is just the lack of the Serial comma, which English grammarians argue over, but does not change the meaning. (Well... that serial comma article does document a court case where the lack of the comma did render a law partly ambiguous, but not sure that situation exists here.)
  • In terms of real-life use, I'm sure it happens all the time. Most use is non-commercial, and even if something is, you often have to show real damages to win in court, so most of the time it's not worth it to try. Cases on this sort of thing are rare, though they do happen. Cases involving architecture are particularly rare, making them very frustrating to follow, but they have happened (once, at least). As for the personal use example, yes that would be allowed, but not by virtue of this section -- that would be article 46(2) which allows that, regardless if a work is in a public place or not. The law seems to address the public work situation explicitly though, rather than leaving it ambiguous, so it would appear that an author could sue over it when there is a material gain, even if most don't -- and that generally makes works "non-free" for us. Unfortunately, copyright owners can usually selectively sue -- i.e. the fact they haven't sued others has no bearing for anyone they do decide to sue, so the mere ability (and the likelihood of it being upheld if it comes to a court case) is more what policy goes by. The map on that page is copied from here (King of Hearts is a contributor here). Either that is an old version, or the image they copied was File:Freedom of Panorama in Europe NC.svg, which has a different legend than the one they use there (which is not a valid combination).
  • If the translation is bad, i.e. the Bosnian has a different structure than the English, please describe that. But that is an official English translation, at least, not machine-generated. If there are examples of court cases where it was ruled to be OK, or even legal statements by high government officials on the matter, please let us know about those. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Clindberg: The sentence after the coma "used for the same purpose as the original work or used to obtain material gain" serves as a grammatical qualifier for the first part "shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form." Expanding it, that means "shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form and used for the same purpose as the original work OR shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form and used for gaining economic advantage." I already explained that with practical examples. While writing the law, the expanded version was clumsy, so the shorter version was preferable. Anyway, had there been three categories of restrictions in this law, they would have been placed in three separate paragraphs. However, that's not the case. My-wiki-photos (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not the way I read it, I guess. That would allow copying of 2-D works, which do serve the same purpose as the original, and used for commercial gain. You inserted the word "and" in there; does the Bosnian original actually have that word? Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The translation is quite literal. The Bosnian has a comma, no "and", one "or". The sentence structure is "May not be reproduced in 3D, used for same purpose or used for material gain." This is a common formulation in the laws of many countries. We could get away with de minimis inclusion of protected works in pictures, but not pictures where a copyright-protected statue, building etc. is the main subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a native Bosnian speaker, I will say this once more. Article 52, Paragraph 2: "(2) The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage." only applies to the use of 3D reproductions. There is nothing in the rest of the law suggesting that 2D reproductions are restricted in any way. There have been no legal cases that relate to No Freedom of Panorama, as that clause is non-existent as such in the law. Wikimedia Commons should correct their interpretation of the Copyright Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina with respect to FOP, and undelete all the images affected so far. My-wiki-photos (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say this, but the structure of the sentence is pretty clear:

Djela [...] ne smiju se

  • reproducirati u trodimenzionalnom obliku
  • upotrijebiti za istu namjeru kao izvorno djelo ili
  • upotrijebiti za ostvarivanje imovinske koristi.

Each of the three is prohibited for every work mentioned in (1).

--j.budissin+/- 22:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @J budissin: You've broken one paragraph into three paragraphs, and by doing so changed the entire structure and thus the meaning of it. The point is, all of it is placed in only one paragraph which describes restrictions of the use of 3D reproductions. I already explained the limitations above, and if you read carefully, you'll understand them. By the way, if any reproductions were prohibited for commercial use, there would be no need to specifically mention 3D reproductions. In that case, the paragraph would read: "(2) The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage." However, that's not the case, and the paragraph in question merely numbers the restrictions on the usage of 3D reproductions. My-wiki-photos (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See my inputs at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Elektroprivreda BiH building (headquarters). Bosnian FOP is still non-commercial. Sarajevo must remove the "and used for gaining economic advantage" wording if they want to promote their tourism. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


In conclusion: Wikimedia Commons has misinterpreted the Copyright Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 2010.
The Article 52 of Copyright Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 2010 has three paragraphs:

(1) The free use of the works permanently located in squares, parks, streets or other places accessible by the public shall be permitted.
(2) The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage.
(3) In the case of the use referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article, the source and authorship must be indicated if they are indicated on the work used.


What is the definition of the word PARAGRAPH? Paragraph is a distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering. The emphasis here is on SINGLE THEME. What is the single theme of the Paragraph 2 in the Article 52? The single theme of the Paragraph 2 in the Article 52 is REPRODUCTIONS IN THREE-DIMENSIONAL FORM. Therefore, the entire text of the Paragraph 2 in the Article 52 relates to the 3D reproductions only.

Wikimedia Commons has extracted the text "used for gaining economic advantage" out of the context of the Paragraph 2 in the Article 52, and practically interpreted it as a single paragraph, and by doing so applied it incorrectly to 2D reproductions as well. Therefore, the interpretation of the Copyright Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 2010 by Wikimedia Commons with respect to Freedom of Panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina is incorrect. My-wiki-photos (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina&oldid=722486253"