Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-DenmarkEVH
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I think this template should not be used, and should be removed from Commons, because I fail to see how a "factual presentation" can be a media file. I might be mistaken by translation issues, though. -Eusebius (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- The short answer is: You are mistaken. The longer answer: EVH is used for illustrations covered by the Danish Copyright Law §9. The classical example is example of this is the illustrations in the Danish Statutory Regulations for High Voltage Installations (da: Stærkstrømsbekendtgørelsen). The illustrations in this document is per definition copyrighted by the Danish Safety Technology Authority which is the government body responsible for this set of regulations. However - even though two people are capable of creating the same drawing independent of each other, as they are illustrating the same legal matter - it would normally be copyrighted in the normal sense. You are thus allowed to make new versions of the illustration (they can even be the exact same), as long as you don't do a direct copy of the media file. I.e. an illustration showing the 10kV power distribution net in Copenhagen is by default copyright, because the Danish Safety Technology Authority holds that copyright. You can't independently create another version without either looking at the statutory regulations or the illustrations within and thus they would always be copyrighted. But because of §9 you are allowed anyway. That's where this template comes into action. --Henrik (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 12:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for your explanations. I think that could be covered by other, more general ineligibility templates (non specific to a country), but ok. I think, however, that we should have a close look at the pictures currently bearing this template. From what you say, I'm not sure that a reproduction of a private company logo, for instance, should be licensed under PD-DenmarkEVH, it should probably be PD-textlogo (if applicable). I also doubt that the photograph of a simple design should be covered by your description of what "factual presentations" are here. I think I had seen a more serious case, but it must have been deleted already. Anyway, if you have a good understanding of the issue, please don't hesitate to make things clearer when you can. --Eusebius (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that a more general ineligibility template would be preferred, but currently I'm not sure which one to use, as I think that it is necessary to provide information, that a media file may contain visually the same content as a copyrighted government created file. This could either be provided using some sort of notice (similar to {{Copydesign}}). Any thoughts would be much appreciated. --Henrik (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 11:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Though I'm not sure, I would believe that the intention of the law is that a set of data (numbers) should not be copyrighted. I would say the intention is not images. However electrical diagrams should be covered by "factual presentations" and thus not copyrighted.
- But since such rules exists in many other countries operating with the "work" concept I believe this template should be replaced by which is not country specific. --|EPO| da: 11:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- After debating the issue on COM:IRC the conclusion is that a combination of {{PD-shape}} {{Trademarked}} should suffice as to covering the freedom of the actualy media and the availability of solely factual presentation. If no one opposes, I'll start converting the files which utilizes this license sometime after christmas and then this license can be deleted. --Henrik (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 12:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that a more general ineligibility template would be preferred, but currently I'm not sure which one to use, as I think that it is necessary to provide information, that a media file may contain visually the same content as a copyrighted government created file. This could either be provided using some sort of notice (similar to {{Copydesign}}). Any thoughts would be much appreciated. --Henrik (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 11:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for your explanations. I think that could be covered by other, more general ineligibility templates (non specific to a country), but ok. I think, however, that we should have a close look at the pictures currently bearing this template. From what you say, I'm not sure that a reproduction of a private company logo, for instance, should be licensed under PD-DenmarkEVH, it should probably be PD-textlogo (if applicable). I also doubt that the photograph of a simple design should be covered by your description of what "factual presentations" are here. I think I had seen a more serious case, but it must have been deleted already. Anyway, if you have a good understanding of the issue, please don't hesitate to make things clearer when you can. --Eusebius (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete Template was only used on a few images and they where easy converted to {{PD-shape}} {{Trademarked}} as per above. Template is no longer used for image licensing. --Henrik (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 17:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)