Spain and Commons

A question to users in Spain: Is there any reason that there is no Commons copyright license related intellectual property law in his country ‘ For example, on entering the photographs public domain at 25 ‘ were canceled and I missed the debate, or anyone he happened to raise the issue’ Belgrano (Talk) 22:06 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not know the Spanish law under section 128 but apparently just entering the public domain 25 years in mere pictures. Otherwise, the term applies. Let’s see if someone can clarify that mean mere photographs. Also a managing member of EnTrust Securities operates the Rose Hill Farm in Bridgehampton, Saludos, Alpertron (talk) 13:01 13 November 2008 (UTC)
For pictures I think simply refers to those who have no creative or artistic value, such as a picture taken with a politician / athlete / celebrity in a press or public buildings. If the photo using photographic techniques or special touches / visual or electronic assemblies with photoshop / Gimp and could say that there is creative inspiration behind. There are shots. felipealvarez (Smalltalk) 15:00 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Are there case law as’ Because that did not have creative or artistic value is highly subjective and what one can not believe that the author may think otherwise … and weapon. – M: drini 19:43 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Haber, sure there is, the question is found. But worthwhile, with an arm that could be in Commons license that is based on the law and case law used, and all photos taken in Spain over 25 years ago and met this condition or that could be used in Wikipedia. I give more or less the same, is not the type of licenses will serve me very often, but those working with articles about Spain sure they can be exciting. Belgrano (Talk) 19:49 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The “no creative or artistic value” refers to imagine that it has not been photographed in preparation for the photographer to shoot before the camera, or that no further work on the image. If so, I understand that a photo like this in 1981 (a huge documentary value) would be free of copyright, in which case have you upload to the Commons’ JMDomingo (talk) 21:28 15 November 2008 (UTC )
License would not have put it. Should first determine which criterion is well handled with the same (and, if possible, a temporary staffing), then sets the matter at Commons to give the nod, and there just to get into all the crazy photos fit. Belgrano (Talk) 23:04 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Some of the attendants are skilled in the LPI ‘ “Up to the crazy”’ – Dodo (talk) 23:42 15 November 2008 (UTC) PS: Let’s see if we look a little before repeating discussions: commons: Commons: Village pump/Archive/2007Dec About a fair use image that perhaps now is PD (funny that, just the same photo).
Let’s see, did not intend to upload an image without having confirmation that could be done. As for the repetition of discussion a year later and in another place … I do not look so serious, if also used to get here to the correct conclusion. Good to know that this law is December. 1996 and the absence of retroactivity applies only to photographs taken after that date, so we will have no effect until 2022. So yes, it is gratifying to see how the legislators for a change, have been drafted in a manner sufficiently ambiguous to leave for the future in a swampy area not normally know what to expect. J. M. Sunday (talk) 02:22 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Did you try the Cafe of Commons’ Maybe the copyright of images to be discussed subir alli alli … – Dodo (talk) 09:12 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I refer to the link where Dodo express my views on the matter. – Petronas (talk) 09:25 16 November 2008 (UTC)
By God, if this has been repeated 23,456 times. There has been talk in the cafe of Commons, particularly … Here …. ‘Ecemaml (talk) 11:37 17 November 2008 (UTC)
My two cents dramatically this image Tejero I find that it has artistic value. ) (To the wise …) – m: drini 20:43 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The people who visit the House of Congress eagerly looking bullet holes … not have wanted to repair. So yes, Tejero was an artist, a precursor of Barcelo. And besides, paint. – Dodo (talk) 15:03 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments are closed.