Talk:Supreme Court of Sweden agrees to try Bildkonst Upphovsrätt i Sverige versus Wikimedia Sverige

Active discussions

Review of revision 3333680 [Not ready]Edit

The sourcesEdit

Note: The reference numbers mentioned here are refering to the original 3 references from when it was first reviewed, which is not in the same order any more.

Source number 1 and 2 explains that the "HD" ('Swedish: Högsta Domstolen; English: The Supreme Court of Sweden) has agreed to try the case between Wikimedia and BUS. Going on that in 2013 BUS contacted Wikimedia demanding compensation for the copyright owners, the artists. The part about "to that of BUS — that is creation (avbilda) of images and videos of an artwork in a public space is allowed, their distribution (återge) remains prohibited." is from source 2 where Erik Forslund is layer for BUS quoting that it is ok to återge but not to avbilda.

Source number 3 is a personal blog for the former party leader of The Pirate Party in Sweden and it is where the quote is from. That is all that source used used for, not the text isself, since it is not peer-reviewed I did not feel comfortable to use that as a source.

If you want a translated text for all the sources thaere is always Google Translate, since I will not send in a copyrighted text, even by email, since that would be totally ironical given this article and it is still possibly illegal.

If you have any questions regarding the verifiability regarding these sources, feel free to ask me. Josve05a (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

We'll see how it goes. Google translate, as we're acutely aware here, is often woefully inadequate; it may produce text that doesn't make sense, or that means something unrelated, or opposite, to the original. At best, the nuances of meaning often required for review get lost. The one phrase you can pretty much rely on being translated well to and from any two languages (because it's a phrase-based translator) is my hovercraft is full of eels. Nevertheless, we try to muddle through with it when we must, and there are some tricks one can use to get more mileage out of it, with a bit of added effort. --Pi zero (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
If we talked in the hall and you read a copyrighted text to me, or translated it for me, that's not copyright infringement. I don't see it's any different if you email it to me. Granted ianal, and certainly ianasl. But in this instance it probably isn't needed anyway. --Pi zero (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Given that normal converstation isn't recorded and saved, no it is not a copyvio, however an email, which is both saved, stored, tranferred, and stored it is. Josve05a (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Seems to me if it's illegal for you to email me a translation of a copyrighted news article, then it's also illegal for Google translate to send me such a thing over the internet. And, for that matter, illegal for the news article to be sent to me across the internet in the first place. But, like I said, it's probably not needed in this instance anyway. --Pi zero (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3337923 [Passed]Edit

Correction to make, but article lockedEdit


The article has an error. I wanted to correct it. But the article is locked.

1) Why is the article locked? I thought there was "wiki" in "Wikinews".

2) Can you please unlock the article and tell it here?

Thank you.


--Nnemo (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nnemo: Old articles are archived (per our archive policy). Request corrections here, using {{editprotected}}. If it's small, not changing the substance of the article, we can simply fix it. If it's a substantive error we'd have to issue a {{correction}}. --Pi zero (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Return to "Supreme Court of Sweden agrees to try Bildkonst Upphovsrätt i Sverige versus Wikimedia Sverige" page.