Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Spain

No TOO informations in Spain?

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama translation

Following LMLM's comments at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Difference between COM:FOP Spain and FoP-Spain,the Freedom of panorama section should be modified to give an accurate translation of Article 35.2 of Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996 of April 12, 1996, and to match {{FoP-Spain}}.

• Spanish text: Las obras situadas permanentemente en parques, calles, plazas u otras vías públicas pueden ser reproducidas, distribuidas y comunicadas libremente por medio de pinturas, dibujos, fotografías y procedimientos audiovisuales.
• Current translation: Works permanently located in parks, streets, squares or other public places may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by means of paintings, drawings, photographs and audiovisual processes.
• Proposed translation: Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.

The effect of this change would be to exclude the interiors of most buildings including churches and museums. The situation with buildings that include thoroughfares such as shopping malls, airports and railway stations is less clear. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. LMLM (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

National Archives

Hello. I've been wondering about this for a while,, and I assume you'll know this far better than I do. Documents in the Portal of Spanish Archives (PARES, Portal de Archivos Españoles) are shown with a copyright watermark, even though many of them are centuries old and as such would normally be in the public domain. Is there any legal basis for these restrictions?

Please see Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs, which I understand applies to old documents as well as to artworks such as paintings. It does not apply to photographs of objects that are significantly three-dimensional, such as wax seals, coins and medals. If you want more details or a wider discussion then I suggest you ask a question at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"Simple" photographs

Does anyone know what would or wouldn't qualify as a "simple" photograph in relation to the copyright rules? Adamant1 (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The Spanish Supreme Court has ruled that for a photograph to be considered more than a simple photograph (obra fotográfica, article 10(1)(h) of the Spanish Copyright Act) it requires sufficient originality and creativity, that is: where the author has personally incorporated the product of his intelligence or knowledge that goes further beyond the mere reproduction of an image (Judgements of October 26, 1992 and March 29, 1996) making the resulting picture "the product of a man's intelligence or inventiveness" (Judgement of June 7, 1995). —MarcoAurelio 21:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of what the court ruled and actually thought it was in the article. Although I don't see it now. Regardless, I was hoping someone would be able to give a less vague description then that. There's got to be some examples or something out there. The reason I'm asking is because there was a DR a while ago for a photograph of some people walking down a hallway that, if I'm remembering correctly, was kept because the people weren't in posed positions by the photographer. Although I thought it should have been deleted anyway due to the angle and what not, which at least IMO showed knowledge about how to compose a shot. There was also another photograph of a nature scene that was kept because "nature is simple" or some nonsense. At that point the whole thing just seems suggestive, or more being used as a way to favor keeping every photograph that isn't 100% original in every way possible. Which I don't think is in the spirit of the court ruling or guidelines. So I'd like a clearer definition then just a reiteration of it being something that is the product of the photographers intelligence or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Raqueros Case

Unless I misunderstand what is written here, the Raqueros Case cited with reference to Freedom of Panorama seems to be about a three-dimensional reproduction of a set of statues, not a photo or other two-dimensional respresentation. That would not seem particularly germane for Commons, nor for the usual meaning of Freedom of Panorama. Or am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel, as per this summary, specifically the relevant section about Raqueros and the Osborne bull, I don't think the case is relevant as the freedom of panorama (art 35.2) exception was not invoked by the defense, nor was it mentioned by the ruling. Nacaru (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)