Commons:Deletion requests/Jokela images by KRP

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

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Jokela images by KRP[edit]

According to the Finnish law (9 §) decisions and statements by authorities or public bodies are in the public domain. However, these images are not decisions nor statements.

Samulili 14:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the image page description states that the images were "Released by the Finnish police at a press conference" so this would have been part of a statement no?? --Markie 23:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not in this case. "Statement" in this case means a publicly given, usually written opinion or instructions that is meant to instruct and influence how other authorities should act. Samulili 07:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hmm so i suppose its debate able as to whether this kind of statement is instructions to the media or not...--Markie 08:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably not very good at explaining what a "lausuma" (statement in Finnish) is, but media is not an authority/public body. (To effect the acts of media or citizens, the police could give orders and make decisions and these would be in the public domain, but these image are not decisions/orders.) Samulili 08:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. The lausuma definitely does not cover all official works. The context of the §9.1 is to put into public domain all such official material which might be used in public discussion about the authorities and the law. The form is päätös tai lausuma. To qualify as päätös (decision), the work must actually include a legally binding decision about subject on which the authority has jurisdiction over. (Finnish coats of arms are a typical example of material included in decisions) A lausuma (statement) is a broader category. I would say that all material which has a binding effect on the authority or presents its official view, is covered by this category. For example, a statement might be a brief filed by an authority in a administrative judicial process. It might be an annual report. It might also be material presented by an official to a decision-making body, even if the proposal is not accepted by the body. (In this case, it would be a statement by the presenting official.) The statement may be directed to other authorities or to the public, but it must be completely offical. The information leaflets or most research publications of the authorities do not fill this requirement. (Usually, the information leaflets refer the reader to the actual statements.)
In this case, the question is whether the informational material made by the KRP and given to the media is a part of the "statement". I would definitely say that considering the situation, the verbal part of the media conference was for the most part a "statement", as the official police view was presented. However, we usually don't consider the informational material handed out by the authorities to be "statements", as they do not bind the police legally. Later, the police will have ready the official report on the incident. If that report includes photos, they are definitely in public domain. However, the current photos are not part of any official "statement". Therefore, I vote Delete. --MPorciusCato 11:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Decision or statement does not equal to cropping an image from PDF document. What a funny world outside the Internets. I watched the KRP statement about the investigation of the murders, and those images were released as a part of it to the public. Such material can't be copyrighted. I clearly understand that not all official works are public domain, but it is clear these images were released in the statement while others weren't. Investigation statements are statements by a public body. --Pudeo 16:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way you use the word "statement" would in Finnish be "ilmoitus" or "tiedotus" (cf. "tiedotustilaisuus") which, depending on the context, in English can be translated as "statement". But we you are not talking about "lausuma" above. Samulili 20:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"4) viranomaisen tai muun julkisen toimielimen päätöksiin ja lausumiin;". Nothing more is defined. Lausua - lausuma. It can be very easily interpreted to include any official publication by the officials which represents the official view. The law isn't more accurate. Should we be? Viranomaiset antoivat lausuman Jokelan tapahtumista.--Pudeo 22:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can only say that this seems to boil down to the fact you have not really understood what "lausuma" is and how it connects to the work of officials. Etymological connections are really irrelevant. Samulili 06:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather say that the language of the Finnish Copyright Act is unclear. Pudeo is correct in saying that in Finnish, you might call the statement given by the Police to the media lausuma (or lausunto), when speaking non-legally. However, the usual practice in Finnish copyright law is to consider the lausuma to be a rather constrained category. Nonetheless, if the photos handed out by the Police in Jokela have been accompanied with any paper that you might call a lausuma, I'd be happy to consider the photos a part of that statement and change my vote. --MPorciusCato 06:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the Swedish-language official law text it is "beslut och yttranden". Remark, statement, conclusion or decision. I do not see a n entry of "lausuma" in Finnish dictionaries, and the law does not specify that it would only be some pdf document. --Pudeo 16:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but feel that this was flagged not for a copyright issue, but for the fact that someone wants to gain some form of reciprocal respect by acting as a guardian over others by "shielding" them from pictures with a negative connotation. There's no problem at all with these pictures, and if they're deleted the likely thing is people will mirror them. 81.158.240.99 13:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed the police about this. I don't except a reply, but since nothing else happening here either.. --Pudeo 16:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They replied saying they are free because they have been released to public domain by the order of the chief of the investigation. They just said they hope source is mentioned and the images not used for "tasteless" purposes:
Hei, pahoittelen, että kysymykseesi vastaaminen on kestänyt näin pitkään, mutta tässä vihdoin: Lehdistötiedotteet ja niiden yhteydessä julkaistut kuvat ovat tutkinnanjohtajan päätöksellä julkisia, joten niitä voivat siis käyttää muutkin kuin tiedotusvälineet. Tietysti toivomme, että netissäkin noudatetaan hyviä tapoja, eli mainitaan tekstin tai kuvan lähde silloin kun se julkaistaan jossain yhteydessä, ja että aineistoa ei käytetä epäasiallisella tavalla.

Terveisin
Tuula Kyrén
tiedottaja
Keskusrikospoliisi

Therefore, Keep. Oh, and I specifically mentioned Wikipedia in my question..--Pudeo 23:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do not say that the images have been released to public domain (when it comes to works, that would even be impossible). What they do say, is that the images are public, as opposed to secret. They do say that it has been decided that the images are public. However, whether a work is a decisions or statements (or a part thereof) According to the Finnish copyright law (9 §), is not something for them to decide. What they have decided, is that the images are public, ie. not secret. Samulili 12:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked them whether they have been released to public domain or not! I linked the Wikipedia article and said that a press-license is not enough, and they answered they can be used.

Here is my question: 

Onko KRP:n lehdistötiedotteissa julkaistu materiaali (kuvat lähinnä)
hyväksytty vapaaseen levitykseen public domain?
Suomen tekijänoikeuslain (404/1961) 9 § mukaan tekijänoikeutta ei ole 4)
viranomaisen tai muun julkisen toimielimen päätöksiin ja lausumiin.
Kuuluvatko KRP:n tiedotteet näihin? Keskustelua on ollut Wikimedia-säätiön
Wikipediassa, jonka artikkeleissa käytetään tällä hetkellä KRP:n Jokelan
kouluammuskelun lehdistötilaisuudessa julkaisemia kuvia. (http://fi.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Jokelan_koulusurmat) Nyt keskustelussa on, saako kyseisiä kuvia
käyttää vai ei. Wikipediassahan ei käy lehdistölisenssit, vaan kuvien täytyy
olla täysin public domainissa.
Terveisin,
***

It's quite clear they replied they are in public domain, as I didn't ask for anything else. Your blind deletionism is getting more pathetic every day. ;) Of course we could send another one, but since it took over a month for that..--Pudeo 14:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point about the wish that images are not used disparagingly is actually a moral right of the author, inalienable by Finnish law. Therefore, a picture with a licence requiring it is as free as it can get. --MPorciusCato 17:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but what you asked is not what they replied to. Unfounded criticism of someone's alleged motives won't make your arguments shine any brighter, by the way. Samulili 18:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you doubting the authenticity of the question and reply, or just presuming a misunderstanding from the police? You haven't backed your claims of them being unfree yet at all. --Pudeo 21:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I'm not being too enigmatic when I put it this way:
You ask: "Are these images in the public domain according to the 9 § of the Finnish Copyright law?"
They reply: "They are public by the decision of the chief inspector."
Samulili 21:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Regardless of the precise wording, it seems like the intent of the investigators was to make unfettered use of these images available to the general public. On the other hand, they're clearly not decisions or statements, so I've modified the tag to "{{PD-author|the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation}}". Additionally, I suggest mailing the exchange above to OTRS, and will remind User:Pudeo of this. Dcoetzee 04:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Seems Pudeo is gone, so I'll mail this conversation to OTRS on his behalf. Dcoetzee 04:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened. Can you, Dcoetzee, explain how you came to the conclusion that the investigators had the intent of releasing the files to the public domain? Public is not the same as public domain. Samulili 10:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I already explained my reasoning adequately, and you might have left a note on my talk page before blindly reverting all of my changes, including the ones that modified the inaccurate license statement. I also don't appreciate your insinuation that in your edit summary that my closing was "uninformed", just because your opinion on the matter differs. Regardless of the precise wording, I believe the intention was to release these works into the public domain, based on User:Pudeo's conviction that this was the correct interpretation. In any case I've submitted the information to OTRS and we'll see if they agree. Dcoetzee 19:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you believe that the intention was something. It seems to me that you base this on what Pudeo said in this discussion but I would like to point out that his interpretion has been disputed by two users in a lengthy and detailed discussion. I think we generally require very explicit and in every way clear statements for releases (see Commons:Email templates). While I also believe that Pudeo acts in good faith, it is customary that the freedom of a work on Commons must be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, so to speak.
English is your native language and I'm sorry if I chose a word which bear connotations I did not intend. What I mean is that since you, obviously, don't understand Finnish or know the Finnish legislation, you should've given more weight to the contradicting opinions in order to make a balanced desicion. My intention was not to suggest that your intentions were malignant or anything like that. Samulili 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It just seems like a borderline case because the e-mail that was sent to them apparently did refer explicitly to license terms, and the response seemed to indicate consent to them, but didn't make an explicit statement itself. It seems like the rough equivalent of me asking "Can I use this under public domain terms?" and you just say "Yes" - would this be sufficient or not? I don't really know what the precedent is in a case like this. Dcoetzee 20:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. OTRS did an independent translation and the statement was in fact not explicit enough. Dcoetzee 03:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us the translation in English please?? Simplicius 05:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid OTRS didn't supply me that information, but I'm sure one of the Finnish-speaking participants in this request would be happy to provide one if you require one. Dcoetzee 22:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Jokela_images_by_KRP&oldid=12326262"