Category talk:Loesje

Copyright according to loesje.nl

English: According to Loesje.nl there is copyright on Loesje's signature, texts and ideas. Freedom of Panorama is not applicable because the posters have not been made to be permanently located in public places. So posters and poster images should NOT be included here unless there is express permission from the organization. See https://www.loesje.nl/informatie/copyright/ (in Dutch)
Loesje in 2020 explicitely released 14 posters that are used in pictures on Commons under CC-BY-SA-4.0: the information on the release is stored in Wikimedia's OTRS mailsystem, under ticket:2020080910004614.

Nederlands: Volgens Loesje.nl Er rust copyright op de handtekening, teksten en gedachtegoed van Loesje. Freedom of Panorama is niet van toepassing omdat dit niet gaat om kunst die permanent in de publieke ruimte is. Dus posters en afbeeldingen van posters mogen hier NIET opgenomen worden, tenzij er uitdrukkelijk toestemming is van de organisatie. Zie verder https://www.loesje.nl/informatie/copyright/
In 2020 zijn 14 bestanden op Wikimedia Commons door Loesje expliciet aangemerkt, als dat de posters die erop te zien zijn gebruikt mogen worden onder CC-BY-SA.40. De mail hierover is beschikbaar voor vrijwilligers met toegang tot Wikimedia's OTRS mailsysteem, onder ticket:2020080910004614.

Mdd (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Futher comment

Ideas are categorically not protectable by copyright, nor are simple signatures/names (which can be trademarks, but that's different). Trivial and banal sentences have been found by Dutch courts to not be copyrightable works (and the same goes in the US, where the Copyright Office rejects the notion that isolated phrases are copyrightable). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @D. Benjamin Miller: for giving this some reconsideration. I guess the first question is what kind of medium, we are talking about in the first place. Now you speak of "ideas", "Signitures", "Trival and banal sentences", "isolated phrases"... as isolated parts.

Yet what is here to be seen is at least four or five integrated parts:

• The creative design process that one specific posters is designed in a specific time and place, to comment of protest against and event, specific condition or circumstances, or whatever
• The specif format and lay-out developed about 50 years ago in such a specific form that people would recognize as such
• The specif shot text and signature
• The Loesje organization facilitating to a certain extend the development, production, distribution, sales and representation

Already with the short text alone it can and will be subject to copyright if it is clear, that specific creative choices have been made. If you take the one text:

• "Een beetje Plakker schudt de hele wereld wakker" (source) ; This is an unique text, that you will not find in a single other source.

An other text is:

• "De wereld wil met me trouwen. Zal ik" (source) ; This is also not a trival text... etc.

Now the text is an essential part poster of the poster as a whole and copyrighted as well as such. These are inseparable connected to the long standing societal and artistic venture of the Loesje organization, which claims the copyright and has ordered the de Merkplaats to govern there claims. This seems all quite solid. -- Mdd (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The creative design process that one specific posters is designed in a specific time and place, to comment of protest against and event, specific condition or circumstances, or whatever

All you're saying is that the sentences on the posters have to do with something (some event, some protest, some condition). This may be true, but having a subject is not what makes something copyrightable. It has nothing to do with copyright.

The specif format and lay-out developed about 50 years ago in such a specific form that people would recognize as such

The format and layout have no copyright protection. Whether or not there is recognizability is not related to copyright. "Coca-Cola" is a recognizable name, but it is not a copyrightable name; it is a trademark, not a copyrighted work. Loesje may claim trademarks related to the logo and layout, but trademarks are not copyrights.

The specif shot text and signature

As addressed before, the signature is not copyrightable (though it may be trademarkable). Whether or not the text is copyrightable is a relevant question, as we'll discuss (again) below.

The Loesje organization facilitating to a certain extend the development, production, distribution, sales and representation

This is completely irrelevant. You can do all of these things without a copyright ever existing.

Already with the short text alone it can and will be subject to copyright if it is clear, that specific creative choices have been made.

Yes, but the shorter the text, the more exceptionally creative it will need to be in order to demonstrate unique personality as a writing per se, above and beyond an idea itself. I do not believe that either of your examples presents enough writing to do so. Remember, the choices must be made in the writing itself, not in the concept.

These are inseparable connected to the long standing societal and artistic venture of the Loesje organization, which claims the copyright and has ordered the de Merkplaats to govern there claims.

Just because Loesje has claimed a copyright and hired someone to represent them does not indicate the claim is valid. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyright notification restored

Yesterday the copyright notification was removed, see here, after earlier discussion here and here (also here). -- Mdd (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

To summerise once more: The above text and the presence of Loesje posters at Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons has quite some history, in short:

1. The first "informal" contacts between Wikipedia and Loesje go way back to 2007 at the Dutch Wikipedia talk site, see here
2. The first image of Loesje poster was added a year earlier in 2006 at the Dutch Wikipedia article, see here.
3. Other upload of images of Loesje Posters date back to 2005, 2006, 2015, 2017 & 2019 (just the posters)
4. Over the years several contemporary posters designs uploaded to Wikipedia have been removed after AFD discussions (*)
5. On 8 jul 2020 the above text was added tot the category page by User:JopkeB, see here and here
6. On August 2020 the Loesje organisations gave us permission to keep hosting these and other work, 16 in total, under CC-BY-SA-4.0, see Category:Media donated by Loesje.
7. A translation of the text was added 6 sep 2020 by User:Ciell, see here
8. The text was removed 10 feb 2024 01:32 by User:D. Benjamin Miller from the category page, see here
9. And finally that text was restored here by me here on this talk page as explained in my earlier comment three days ago

Two things keep me wondering. First why and how was the permission by Loesje required acquired (step 6). A why was the text removed in the first place (step 8), while it had been a kind of community consensus to begin with. With the message this consensus held for about 3.75 years. It could have been questioned, but should have only been removed after some consensus was reached. On other minor thing is, that despite the message two other posters were added, see (here and here, were eventually some kind of adjustment should be taken. -- Mdd (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC) / 20:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• It was never established that permission was required. Someone asked for permission and received it, but that does not mean it was ever required.

• The fact that nobody really looked at a page for a few years doesn't mean there is any widespread consensus.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

D. Benjamin Miller, you are right. I meant to say, it was acquired. Next I wrote a kind of community consensus, which in my opinion is one sort of community consensus:

1. Any claim expressed and not disputed
2. Any claim expressed, disputed with some consensus reached
3. Any claim expressed, disputed, and brought to a vote... etc., etc.

Indeed not any widespread consensus, whatever that might mean. -- Mdd (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• About step 6 (why and how was the permission by Loesje required): In 2020 I saw the Loesje posters in Commons without a OTRS/VRT ticket while on their website was the statement that "Images may not be used commercially without permission". I took that message for granted and as a truth. I did not know about previous discussions about this subject, nor about TOO. There was no note or message in this Commons category about these discussions. So I contacted Loesje and they give permission for the images in Commons at that date, with a CC-BY-SA-4.0 licence.
  
• I agree with Mdd that the text should not have been removed before consensus was reached.
  
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Personalised St. Valentine's Day message, Rotterdam-Centrum, Rotterdam (2021) 01.jpg a similar discussion is going on. I suggest to wait until that discussion has been closed, before closing this discussion. I think both discussions should have the same conclusion because it is about the same subject and both involve copyright law in the Netherlands. Then this conclusion should be integrated in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands#Not protected and/or Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands#Lacking evidence of original authorship/ creative input of any kind, including the evidence/sources.

JopkeB (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Dank @JopkeB: voor je samenvatting en vooruitzicht. Er is nu een langere discussie (geweest) op COM:VPC (zie ook hier, waarin ik twee Amerikaanse moderatoren en een "opkomend" talent hebben volhard in hun stellingname door te spiegelen. Zelf zie ik een parallel met afgelopen jaar hier, wat uiteindelijk hier is beslist. Zelf heb ik dat na een week of twee naar me toe getrokken, en dat een week of vijf volgehouden dat te verdedigen. In die tijd heb ik enige betrokkenen gesproken en ben ik de gang van zaken in de afgelopen 80 jaar nagegaan. Nu bijna een jaar later zou ik er zo een opstel van tien kantjes kunnen volschrijven. Zaken die maar niet bespreekbaar waren, waarin de gangmaker/opponent net in geïnteresseerd was.

Wat ik daarvan heb opgestoken is, dat het Nederlandse cultuurerfgoed niet zonder slag of stoot in goede handen blijft op Wikimedia Commons. Nu zou dat kunnen zijn omdat er meerdere benaderingen en uitwerkingen mogelijk zijn. In het eerdere geval leidde die resolute ontkenning bij mij tot een tamelijke (cultuur)schok. Hieromtrent heb ik opgestoken, dat je daaromtrent niet extern uitkomst kan vinden. Het is iets wat we slechts met elkaar hier kunnen oplossen. Daarvoor moeten we echter zelf boven onze eigen onenigheden uitstijgen, en dat is vrij vaak een onmogelijke opgave gebleken Zelf ben ik op Wikipedia nooit helemaal vol in gegaan, maar ben de dialoog met de buitenwereld blijven aangaan. Twaalf jaar terug was daar echter flink de klad in gekomen, en dat is eigenlijk niet meer goed gekomen. Nu gaat het hier niet om m'n wissewasjes, maar om de gespannen situatie, de onmogelijke spagaat waarin je telkens weer terecht komt als je nog eens moet bemiddelen.

Om concreet te zijn, ga jij maar eens uitleggen aan Loesje wat hier nu aan de hand is? Met het leggen van dat contact, het vragen om en verkrijgen van toestemming zijn er door jou ook verwachtingen geschapen, dat het toen in kannen en kruiken is. Als die voorgestelde en gerealiseerde bodem dan onder het contact wordt uitgetrokken, heeft dat ook z'n consequenties. En dit alles valt moeilijk te overzien. Zelf vind ik wel dat we al een stap voorwaarts hebben gedaan, door die copyright-mededeling van Loesje naar de OP te verplaatsen. Het kan nog steeds zo zijn, dat de gangbare opvatting hier echter wijzigt. En tussen al die discussie heb ik dat wel zien al zien gebeuren. Met name over hun stellingname over het format, het font en de term Loesje, die onder copyright staan. Die betekenis of bedinging is feitelijk betrekkelijk. Het is beperkt tot culturele uitingen van een zelfde orde en grafisch format. Dat is een uitkomst die ik zie zitten. Maar dit alles ter zijde.

Wat ik me nog wel afvraag is, of jij een contactpersoon hebt bij Loesje? Zelf overweeg ik om ook eens contact met hun op te nemen, naast andere mogelijke contacten. Wat het copyright op die literaire teksten betreft ben ik vrij zeker en meen ik ook een en ander in de blog van AE gelezen te hebben. Maar ja, ik heb ik niet tijd dat vrijwel allemaal gelezen en dat wordt wel even terugzoeken. De kern was echter dat in Nederland die norm van die scheppingshoogte niet zo streng was. De lat werd niet zo hoog gelegd, wat ik meen te hebben gelezen. ER zit me echter nog veel meer dwars, wat in de huidige omgeving maar niet uitkomt. Daarom heb ik dit nu ook op langere termijn geschoven, en ga ik binnenkort eerst m'n eigen dingen weer doen. Dit alles slechts ter achtergrond, waarom ik hierboven verder niet zal reageren. Mvg en succes ermee verder, -- Mdd (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Ik heb destijds via het e-mail-adres van de website https://www.loesje.nl/over-loesje/contact contact gehad en de antwoorden kwamen ook altijd via dit e-mail-adres. Ik heb op dit moment geen plannen om contact met hen op te nemen. JopkeB (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)