Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Reichstag flag.jpg

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.

Image:Reichstag flag.jpg[edit]

According to the current Russian Copyright Law (1993-2007 as Copyright Law and 2008-... as Part IV of the Civil Code) - time of copyright protection of work is determined based on biographical data of his author. In Russia the author is natural person and there are only two exceptions:

  1. Juridical person can be author in the term of law if work was first publicated outside Russia.
    or
  2. Juridical person can be author in the term of law if work was first publicated before August 3 1993 (or 1992) and represents
    • scientific collection, encyclopedia, dictionary, journal (magazine), newspaper or other periodical (in that case - Juridical person is author in the term of law only for compilation as a whole. Each constituent of such compilation is independently protected under of his real author);
    • movies and telefilms;
    • radio and television broadcasts.

So, according to Russian Copyright Law, this image is copyrighted until the end of 2071 = 1997 (Yevgeny Khaldei death year) +70 + 4. Alex Spade 18:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note to Whomever in charge, sorry if You don't want this in this section. If theres a problem please edit this, do not delete it):The copyright Laws are all being followed and this is nothing but a waste of time. This is a recognized piece of history and it should be respected upon like any other piece of history.S.P.R 18:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On reading this template, {{PD-Russia}}, I see that it says "Works belonging to the former Soviet government or other Soviet legal entities published before January 1st, 1954, are also public domain in Russia."
w:Yevgeny Khaldei worked for w:TASS until 1949 according to his wikipedia bio. I believe this photograph may have been published by TASS. --Timeshifter 00:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is lost in translation. In reality the term "Works belonging to ... legal entities" does not mean that "They are owners and/or copyright holders" - it's mean "They are authors in the terms of law".
Yes, it's possible that TASS is copyrighter holder of this work, but TASS is not author in the term of law. Alex Spade 06:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, this is not the image that was published by TASS in 1945. This is a version that was published for the first time in the 1990s (AFAIK, in the exhibition catalog "From Moscow to Berlin", 1999). As such, this version is copyrighted in the U.S. until 70 years after Khaldei's death (created before 1978, but published 1978 or later, but before the end of 2002). Second, from January 1, 2008 on, this image will be copyrighted anyway in Russia according to the new Russian copyright law that will then enter in effect. See {{PD-Russia-revised}}. Third, also delete Image:Red army soldiers raising the soviet flag on the roof of the reichstag berlin germany.jpg: that is the version published by TASS, but it too will be copyrighted in Russia from January 1, 2008 on. It may be PD in the U.S., if so, move that one to the English Wikipedia. Fourth, also remove Image:Red-flag-on-Reichstag, another angle, no smoke..jpg: no idea when this was published; it doesn't have a source, and will also become copyrighted again in Russia on January 1, 2008. Lupo 08:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S.: If Alex had not nominated these images now, I would have done so in January... because from January on, these images are copyrighted in Russia even if we assume that TASS were the author, because the new Russian copyright law pushes back the cut-off for PD in Russia by eleven years, making any work first published in 1943 or later not PD there. Lupo 08:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aspect "Work made for Hire"[edit]

  • Keep First, this is the image that was published by TASS in 1945 all right. The fact that one of the wrist watches was removed on the originally published image doesn't make it a different image/work/photograph that was published in 1999. If anything the artist who altered the original image could claim copyright to his "artwork", just that this is unlikely since the work was done as a Soviet government employee. The same goes for the image. It's taken by the Soviet military photographer during his military service. Therefore the image is in PD Russia and in PD US according to the year 1978 rule all right. Finally, the retroactivity of the rights for works made by the Soviet military serviceman like the image here, should be better referenced. In any case, even if the rights of the author are going to be covered retroactively from Jan 2008 on, it doesn't necessary mean an image is not in PD or free any more. The rights of the author in cases of military service etc. do not limit the use of such images. In any case I'd put this deletion procedure on hold until the claims above are sorted out exactly according to the new Russian copyright law. For doing it, please provide English translation of the law. Thanks!--Termer 20:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Repeat this image will be copyrighted until end of 2071. TASS is not author in the terms of law. The Russian copyright law hasn't got corporative copyright exept three cases, which are described in the begining of this discussion. Alex Spade 10:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you misunderstood me? Please provide an official translation of the new Russian copyright law so it can be determined how exactly the authors rights are going to be covered retroactivly. As even if authors rights apply, it doesn't necessary men the image is going to be copyrighted. Whatever the case, the image remains in PD US according to the 1978 rule therefore there is no reason to hurry with the deletion procedure here.--Termer 08:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't say about retroativity of 2008-law. The E.Khaldei always was author of this image under terms of 1964-Soviet-Law, 1993-Russian-law, 2004-Russian-law. The retroactivity is nothing in this case. Alex Spade 11:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's good since according to the Russian copyright law article 14 works created during official duties, the exclusive rights including copyright belong to the Soviet state that have expired. The author only had/has moral rights that are spelled out in article 15.--Termer 22:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are reading article 14 incorrectly. The copyright holder of this image is w:ITAR-TASS now, its copyrights is not expired, because time of protection is depending on biographical data of author-employee. Repeat phrase Works belonging to the former Soviet government or other Soviet legal entities published before January 1st, 1954, are also public domain in Russia. is saying about initial copyrights of legal entities - the respective initial copyrights (whem legal entity is author in the terms of law) can be appear only in three case, which are mentioned at the beginig of topic. Alex Spade 10:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has been discussed time and time again.. Do you really think it would be promoted to FP on Wiki if it were a copyright violation? 76.238.98.148 01:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing has been said to establish a violation here. -Nard 01:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{PD-Russia}} states it clearly and unambiguosly. If you disagree with template, fix it first. Mikkalai 06:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{PD-Russia}} has got lost in translation in the case of legal entities.
    Instead.
    Works belonging to the former Soviet government or other Soviet legal entities published before January 1st, 1954, are also public domain in Russia.
    For Wikipedia purposes must be
    Films published before January 1st, 1954 by Soviet cinema studious, are also public domain in Russia.
    Alex Spade 10:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Kuban kazak 13:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Until we get some definitive English translations of the Russian copyright law, and some understanding about whether World War 2 TASS photos are in the public domain or not. Also, Termer may be right that this original photo is still considered a TASS photo even if it was doctored before printing. And I would like to know if the photo is still in the public domain outside Russia. Can Russia retroactively revoke public domain outside Russia? --Timeshifter 15:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't even take the idea seriously that somehow the same photo taken by the same photographer published in 1945 and 1999 has 2 different ways to determine the rights of the guy who took the image etc. because that's what the deletion nomination refers to: to the extension of the authors rights from 2008 on in Russia. The author in this case would be the guy who snapped that pic.--Termer 08:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 2008-law is unimpotant in this case. This image is copyrighted by Yevgeny Khaldei's legatees in accordance with both 1993-law and 2004-law. Alex Spade 10:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry but the Russian copyright law is pretty clear about it that Yevgeny Khaldei or his legatees do not own copyright to this image since it's work created in the performance of official duties... . Please see Article 14. However, the authors rights that have been extended retroactively are limited according to Article 15. Personal Rights (Moral Rights): the right to be recognized as the author of the work; the right to use or allow the use of the work under the author's true name or pseudonym; the right to protect the work, including its title, against any distortion or other infringement prejudicial to the author's honor and dignity or without designation of name, etc.--Termer 06:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • PS. to spell it out, the Exclusive Rights of this image have belonged to the Soviet Army, TASS as the government publisher would be even irrelevant regarding copyright. Since the Exclusive Rights have belonged to the Soviet Military where Yevgeny Khaldei performed his official duties, the image is in PD Russia according to Works belonging to the former Soviet government or other Soviet legal entities published before January 1st, 1954.--Termer 06:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your reading and/or understnding of law is incorrectly. The respective article says: Who is copyright holder? - Employer. And who is author? - Employee. Time of copyright protection of work is determined based on biographical data of his author, not his employer. I have explained your case above to User:Timeshifter
          • In reality (in appropriate translation) the term "Works belonging to ... legal entities" does not mean that "They are owners and/or copyright holders" - it's mean "They are authors in the terms of law".
          • Yes, E.Khaldei as employee could make this image for TASS as employer, i.e. it's possible that TASS is copyrighter holder of this work, but TASS is not author in the term of law.Alex Spade 11:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Termer above. Yann 00:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing to add to Andros64 would be that the exclusive rights belonged to the Soviet state according to Article 14 of the Russian copyright law only when the work was created during official duties (which was the military service in this case) or employment. In case any work was made by a private citizen for his/her private needs, exclusive rights including copyright would still belong to the author of the work. Since the photo under discussion here was made during official duties, the exclusive rights belonged to the Soviet state that have expired and the author only had/has moral rights according to Article 15, like it has been pointed out already several times.--Termer 22:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Repeat from above. The copyright holder of this image is w:ITAR-TASS now, its copyrights is not expired, because time of protection is depending on biographical data of author-employee. Repeat phrase Works belonging to the former Soviet government or other Soviet legal entities published before January 1st, 1954, are also public domain in Russia. is saying about initial copyrights of legal entities - the respective initial copyrights (whem legal entity is author in the terms of law) can be appear only in three case, which are mentioned at the beginig of topic. Alex Spade 10:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment The duration of the rights retroactively are also very clearly spelled out in the Russian copyright law: [1] Duration of copyright Article 27 Comment 1 : if afore defined 50 years term of copyright is expired by the 28the of July 2004, then such a term is not to be prolonged. It's pretty straight forward. Since the rights expired originally in 1945+50=1995, the 70 years term is not even applied according to the 28the of July 2004 rule to the photo here.--Termer 18:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS.I hate to point it out once more but the author of the photo legally is not the guy who took the pic but its according to Article 14 the 'Author of a Work made for hire meaning the Soviet Military where Yevgeny Khaldei performed his official duties. In case it's not clear what or who is the "Author of a Work made for Hire" let me spell it out: If a work is a work made for hire, the employer or other. person for whom the work was prepared is the author.[2] --Termer 20:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dear Termer. You still doesn't understand. The phrase "Works belonging to the former Soviet government or other Soviet legal entities published before..." is camed from point 4 and 5 of Implementation Act of 1993-Russian-copyright-law. They are not saying about article 14 "Works made for Hire" or its predecessor from Soviet Russia. They are saying about article 485 (scientific collection, encyclopedia, dictionary, journal (magazine), newspaper or other periodical), 486 (cinema and TV films) and 486 (radio and TV broadcating) of Civil Code of RSFSR[3]. , You can find this thesis in the most of commentary to Russian copyright law (for example by Gavrilov E.P.[4] - "Комментарий к постановлению о порядке введения в действие Закона" point 11-16) and in some aspects in High Court Decision [5]. This thesis was thoroughly checked in Ru-Wiki by users, which are fluent in Russian.
      • You can try to continue, but this is useless, you just lose the time. This way is closed, there isn't "hole" in law in this case. The way of Andros64 is more adequate. Alex Spade 14:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Termer--SkyDrinker 03:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aspect "Simultaneous publication in some states"[edit]

Keep In any case Russia is not the only legal successor for the Soviet Union - there were 16 republics of USSR. All photos of TASS were simultaneously published in all of 16 republics of USSR (especially in Stalin times) - in agencies which were republican (quasi-independent ;) ) and in press of all Soviet republics (It was a part of all-Union coordination of propaganda). In conclusion - for example this photo as published by TASS belongs to {{PD-Ukraine}} too. It means, that in any case - every Soviet photos, published before the beginning of 1952 , by Soviet state agencies , Soviet press , - belongs also to {{PD-Ukraine}} (and are the subject of copyright regulations of the rest of former Soviet republics too) . It is possible, that in other former Soviet Republics the term of securing copyright may be shorter.

In any case there is no reason for deleting this photo, and any Soviet photos till the beginning of 1952 (from the WW II particularly). A little bit of common sense - please.

In conclusion - the changes of regulations in Russia does not automatically deprive Soviet photo a state of PD. Especially - there was no private property in the case of copyright in USSR of Stalin times (30-50-ties) at all. All published images were state (state agencies) property in the time of publishing.

PS.It would be strange for me to remove well known images just from history of Russia an the whole world , or to force to retag there into republican tags - in the final result. Best regards for everybody and Happy New Year! Andros64 16:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. There was 15 republics in USSR at the disintegration moment. Karelo-Finish SSR was part of RSFSR since 1956, and also Republic Tuva (Tyva) was since 1944. The three of them: Estonia, Litva, Latvia aren't recognize legal successor of USSR themselves.
    2. All photos of TASS were simultaneously published in all of 16 republics of USSR. Two points
      • You want to say: All works published in USSR were simultaneously published in all republics? May be, may be. May be I can support this thesis earlier or in rediscussion of the situation with deprecated {{PD-USSR}}. But results of discussion, where this thesis was as one of variant of problem solution, were another.
      • You want to say: All works of telegraph agency were simultaneously published in the whole of broadcasting zone? No. The place of publication for broadcasting systems is place of emission, not place of receiving.
    3. And again. There were/are not corporative copyrights in USSR, RSFSR, other 14 republics and all 12 their legaletees. The time of protection - 50 or 70 years - is unimpotant in this case. Yevgeny Khaldei died in 1997. If we use shorter time of protection, this image still be copyrighted until the end of 2047. Alex Spade 11:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment There are two different cases : the first one - the moral rights of author - the second one - the material rights ( property of photo). In any case in 1945 and later there was no legal possibility for private ownership of copyrights in Soviet Union. In effect - in time of publication all material ( property) rights have belonged to the state.

  • Really? Did you read 1925-USSR-copyright-law [6]? The material rights and point "who is author?" are perfectly shown in it. The E.Khaldei is always author of this photo, according to 1925-law, 1964-law, 1993-law, 2004-law, 2008-law. TASS (ITAR-TASS) is always only copyright holder. Alex Spade 10:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment First : TASS had affiliates in 14 Union republics (RSFSR was covered by TASS itself) see en:TASS. Second : "There were/are not corporative copyrights in USSR, RSFSR, other 14 republics and all 12 their legaletees".- see your remark above. It was a state property of Soviet Union, and now its legal successors and a subject of various, different regulations in different states - 12 former Soviet republics.
      • Yes. TASS was all-Soviet organization. But TASS was/is copyright holder for its works, the republican agencies for their works. They were changing them for republication (redistribution), for translarion and etc., but all of them have got independent copyright. More over, you have written "It was a state property of Soviet Union" - TASS was, but not TASS copyright. The 1964-law is perfectly divided state copyright propetry (which was in PD in most cases) and state and state-owned organizations' copyright propetry (which was copyrighted termless). Alex Spade 14:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in the question of number of republics ( I've written about the situation just in 1945).

One remark - We don't talk about "the broadcasting zone" but about simultanuos publication of photo in republican press (and press agencies - in Moscow, Kiev, Minsk, Tbilisi an so on) in Stalinist times (Till Gorbachov times it was the same situation in fact).

The main question in this particular case is the legal one. In 1945 - time of publication - the owner of this photo was Soviet Union as a state (you are right - it was none corporative rights in SU that time, but there was no copyright private property at all too). Such way - present law regulations may renew or restore an existing in the past material (property) law (when it was expired) in retroactive. Present law regulations may not and cannot in any case create material (property) law in retroactive.

  • Nothing was. All rights belong to author in the time of USSR (Sometimes the legal entity can be author, but only in three cases). 1993-law is retroactive - it's perfectly shown in 2006-High Court Resolution. You still want to rediscuss the results of discussion about status {{PD-USSR}} (and {{PD-Russia}} in current). Alex Spade 10:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So,every photo has its author, but not every has its proprietor. As for today Yevgeny Khaldei is an author (with all moral rights to work), but for reason of specifical Soviet regulations ( and last but not least - not respecting by SU Berne Convention that time) he wasn't an owner of material right (proprietor) of the work in time of publishing.

For this reason - apart from case of legal succesors of state property of Soviet Union (these 12 republics - you've noticed above) there is no reason for deleting this image.

Best regards Andros64 17:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment In any case Wikipedia cannot create the law , but respect the existing one. In case of state property of Soviet Union there are 12 (not single one) legal successors - with different regulations - and the regulations of Russia towards legal situation in the past are not the only one and definitive. In such cases Berne Convention is in effect.

Besides - It is also the question strict distintion of moral and material rights for the work. Every photos that time was state property of Soviet state (as a federation) and their authors were paid for. No one denies moral right for the work, but material ( property) ones are also out of discussion - as a property of former (non-existing at present) state they belong to the jurisdiction of all legal successors - and has to be treated as published in the whole area of former Soviet Union.

Best regards: Andros64 11:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment

Art. 12. Авторское право в части или в целом может быть отчуждено по издательскому договору или иным законным способом, при чем характер использования авторского права должен быть определен в точности договором. Договоры о переуступке авторского права должны быть, под страхом недействительности, заключаемы в письменной форме. ( "Copyright can be tranferred partly of fully by the way of agreement or another way according to the law, the form of transferring of copyright shall be decribed by agreement in detail. Agreements on tranferring copyright shall be made in the written form to be legally valid.")

Art 9. (...)Для сохранения за фотографом авторского права на фотографические зображения требуется означение на каждом экземпляре: 1) фирмы или имени, фамилии и места жительства фотографа или издателя фотографии и 2) года выпуска в свет фотографического произведения.1925-USSR-copyright-law (translating into English is necessary ? - "Art.9 for securing copyright for the image by photographer clear copyright notice on every copy of photo , including 1) his name , legal address of photographer or editor and 2) year of publication of photo - is necessary" - it is clear regulation of Soviet copyright law of 1925 , legally valid in 1945 in Soviet Union.)

Are these conditions fullfilled in this situation? Andros64 14:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Andros64, you still want to discuss the results of discussion of {{PD-Soviet}} by in some other way and add some another aspects.

  1. We still don't know whem and where this image was first publicated. We are assuming, that it was in 1945 in all 16(15) republics, but we don't know. For example User:Lupo said, that it was first publicated in the exhibition catalog "From Moscow to Berlin", (1999). But for I suggest, that this is not very impotant, lets this image was first publicated in 1945 in all 16(15) republics.
  2. As I understand, you aren't trying to say "Work publicated in USSR, publicated in all 15(***) republics" (this way is closed by early discussion), you are trying to say "TASS-work publicated in all 15 republics". Ok, this is possible.
  3. The author of this image is natural person, not TASS. TASS is only copyrigted holder.
  4. According to 1925-law this image was in PD since Jan.1 1949 (1951 - if it was in colection), before 1964-law. 1964-law wasn't retroactive.
  5. So, we must to examine 12 new post-Soviet copyright law for retroacitive act [7].
    • Russia - full national retroactivity, no international.
    • AZ - commonly N/A, for photoworks no retroactivity.
    • AM - full national retroactivity. International? - N/A.
    • Ukraine - full international retroactivity.
    • ... and etc.
    • So, in our case in some post-Soviet states, there are not retroactive acts or information about it for photowork. But in some there are.
  6. What is Berne Convention saying about protection in the case of simultaneous publication in some states in Article 5 point 4? The time of protection is smallest from state-specific law (but state must be participant of convention and time couldn't be less then 50 years from the death or publication - because this is base time for convention). But this case is only for works which can be copyrighted. If some state didn't protect some works, this is not mean, that such work cann't be copyrighted in other state during Simultaneous publication. For example, COA of Canada is copyrighted in Canada, but not copyrighted in Russia. In USA works of NASA is PD, but in Russia they are copyrighted by NASA (or their authors). In Russia - all state flags and COAs uncopyrigted, in Beralus - only Belarus state flag and COA (in singular).
  7. Yes. This image could be in PD in Azerabaidzhan and some other post-Soviet states, but it's copyrigthed in Russia, in Ukraine, in Armenia and some other post-Soviet states.
  8. But what is saying Wiki-Commons rules? The work must be free in USA and in country (countries) of origin. This work are not free in some countries of origin. Alex Spade 15:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back of Aspect "Work made for Hire"[edit]

 Comment Nothing you have said here has changed anything. Copyright principles are the same everywhere. So in that sense the Russian copyright law is no different. It is straight forward. The work is made during official duties therefor Exclusive rights belonged to the Employer , Soviet state, who is the author of the work in legal sense whose Exclusive rights including copyright expired 50 years after publication according to the 28the of July 2004 mark and the guy who made the pic has/had moral rights only. There is nothing more to it.--Termer 18:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • My dear Termer you can back to aspect "Work made for Hire" as long as you can or/and wish. But you are still wrong and/or misundersanding the points 4-5 of Implementation Act of 1993-Russian-copyright-law. Anyone, who is fluent in Russian can read points 4-5 of Implementation Act, Commentary for these points, Articles 4 (second paragraph), 14 and 27 of 1993-Law, Commentary for these articles, and also Articles 485 and 486 of Civil Code of RSFSR. You can read them too, there are enough ru-en translator.
  • Briefly again.
  1. The time of protection is depended on data about author always. The copyright holder is unimpotant for time of protection.
  2. Usually author is natural person, but in some cases author is legal person, but it is not in our case. For example:
    • The copyright holder of this photowork is TASS. The author is E.Khaldei. The time of protection is 74 year from E.Khaldei's death.
    VERSUS
  • Claiming "you're wrong" is not going to get you anywhere I'm afraid. I don't think I'd have anything to add to what I've said here regarding the rights and who is/was the author of the image in legal sense etc. This is what I'd say, feel free to go ahead and get all WWII images under PD-Russia deleted on Commons and once you're done with it, we can return to this discussion. Good luck!--Termer 18:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, yeah. I can fill free, but not here - I'm not sysop here, but there are enough Wiki-Commons sysops, which are fluent Russian and can check my thesis. Moreover, some of them are also Ru-Wiki sysops, where PD-Russia was changed. You can see respective template w:ru:template:PD-Russia and compare with out-of-date Wiki-commons ones. Alex Spade 19:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, my Russian is not that good but even I can make it out that the only thing w:ru:template:PD-Russia says for sure is that the status of this template from Jan 2008 on is uncertain or unknown, if possible please use PD OLD or PD-Russia-2008. I can't see any of this "uncertain or unknown" as a reason to delete the image and in case there is a need to point it out once more. Since the author of the image was legally the Soviet state and the rights have expired, the image is in PD-Russia and in PD-US. In order to get this image deleted, it has to be proven by reliable sources that Russia has returned all Exclusive rights belonging to the Soviet state to the original "physical" authors retroactively, only that would take it out from PD-Russia.--Termer 03:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have compared useless in our discussion notice about 2008-changes. For our discussion point 5 of Ru-Wiki Template is impotant - it says what is really mean "Works belonging to the former Soviet government or other Soviet legal entities published before January 1st, 1954, are also public domain in Russia". Alex Spade 11:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No violation here.--Miyokan 10:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aspect of retroactivity[edit]

 Comment I revoke clear regulations of Soviet copyright law from 1925 1925-USSR-copyright-law(legal valid , however not respected in fact since 1930 (the end of NEP an end of activity of any private editors and private business activity in Soviet Union), but in effect in 1945 in the whole area of SU.

Art. 12. Авторское право в части или в целом может быть отчуждено по издательскому договору или иным законным способом, при чем характер использования авторского права должен быть определен в точности договором. Договоры о переуступке авторского права должны быть, под страхом недействительности, заключаемы в письменной форме. "Copyright can be tranferred partly of fully by the way of agreement or another way according to the law, the form of transferring of copyright shall be decribed by agreement in detail. Agreements on tranferring copyright shall be made in the written form to be legally valid."

Art 9. Срок пользования авторским правом на фотографические произведения устанавливается для отдельных снимков в три года, для собрания снимков - в пять лет. Для сохранения за фотографом авторского права на фотографические зображения требуется означение на каждом экземпляре: 1) фирмы или имени, фамилии и места жительства фотографа или издателя фотографии и 2) года выпуска в свет фотографического произведения.1925-USSR-copyright-law ("Art.9 The term of using copyright for photographical works is established for single photos - three years , for collections of photos - five years. For securing copyright for the image by photographer clear copyright notice on every copy of photo , including 1) his name , legal address of photographer or editor and 2) year of publication of photo - is necessary" - it is clear regulation of Soviet copyright law of 1925 , legally valid in 1945 in Soviet Union.)

Are these conditions fullfilled in this situation?

First :is any published in 1945-1949 ( the term of securing copyright according to art 9. of Soviet copyright) copy of photo was remarked ( waterproofed or signed) such way : Yevgeny Khaldey 1945 (author), or TASS 1945? (as editor). I don't see it and it wasn't presented in fact.

Second:Is any written agreement (from 1945 or before) between author and editor according copyright exist? I don't know about. The is no proof to assupt TASS as copyowner or even copyholder. What in the subject of anonymous works. If they were not copyrighted from the beginning (in the way decribing in art 9 and 12 of Soviet copyright valid in 1945) there are copyfree.

Third: en:ITAR-TASS is a different legal entity from TASS. It is new entity created by a decree of President of Russian Federation in 1992 "on basis" of property of former TASS and "Novosti" remained at the territory of Russian Federation.

Finally - in lack of evidence of proper securing and transferring copyrights in 1945 - 1949 - TASS (1945-1949) seems to be only freeuser of all these images (not copyrighted in the proper way). Besides in 1945 there was no corporative copyright in SU and TASS was that time simply Soviet State intitution (without legal entity).The law of 1964 (Soviet Union Civil Code) is not in effect retroactivaly in this situation. Copyright not reserved in the the proper legal way haven't existed anyway. As I've noticed above there is no possibility to create material law in retroactive.

All the best. Andros64 14:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment: it is utterly futile to try to operate with the short copyright terms of the old Soviet laws. All these laws' copyright terms were completely superseded and invalidated in Russia by the 1993 copyright law of Russia. That law explicitly restored copyright in works, even if the old Soviet terms had already expired. The Russian Supreme Court said so in its plenum decision 15/2006, points 34 and 37. Lupo 09:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment - There is a possibility to restore or renew copyright retroactivaly , there is no possibility to secure non-existing copyright ( not established in legal way in the time of publication) retroactivaly. You have to prove, that it was copyrighted from the beginning. Andros64 14:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, but that's exactly what the Russians did. See plenum decision 15/2006, point 37 (granting neighboring rights to old Soviet works, when Soviet law did not know such rights). See also Elst (full ref below), pp. 528-533, or also Savelyeva, I. V.: "The Russian Federation", pp. 25–60 in Stewart, S. M. (ed.): International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, Butterworths, London, 1993. ISBN 0-406-03158-4. Lupo 16:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Andros64, as I understand you decide to move from point "This image was publicated in some states, in some of them it is PD" to "This image is PD in Russia" and dispute cat of retroactivity of 1993-law.

  1. ITAR-TASS is legatee of TASS, but not of republic agencies. As I said - (for this comment I redifine my previus thesis). TASS has got own propetry and been doing own work, the republican agencies have got own propetry and been doing own work. They were changing them for republication (redistribution), for translarion and etc., but all of them have got independent propetry - been doing own work. But this question is unimpotant for time of protection, I don't see need to back to it. The author and contry(ies) of origin are impotant.
  2. You wrong. The 1926-law was enough respective in USSR after NEP. The many works were in PD according to them before 1993. It was very impotant espessially for time of protection for cinema films. But this your and my opinions are also unimpotant. The law was. Our appraisal about effectiveness is nothing.
  3. Article 9 of 1926-law and similar article 475 from 1964-law are unimpotant now. The 1993,2004,2008-laws made such or similar demands is null for all works - the time of creation/publication is unimpotant for this point in Russia now. Similar demand was in USA-law early, and it's still impotant for some years of creation/publication for USA-law, but not for RU-law.
  4. Article 12 is nothing for our case. It is still in RU-law in other form (formulation). As I said, the copyrightholder/owner or smb. else was unimpotant for time of protection in RU-law.
  5. Is this image in PD according to 1926-law? Yes, it was, if it had been publicated in time of action of law. It was in PD since Jan.1 1949 (1951 - if it was in colection)(PD-because-old) or may be early because of Article 9 (PD-because-uncopyrigted).
  6. Is this image in PD according to 1964-law? (a) It was, If it had been publicated before 1964, because 1964-law and 1974-changes weren't retroactive. (b) Or, it was because of demand of last paragraph of Article 475 of 1964-law (PD-because-uncopyrigted).
  7. Is this image in PD according to 1993-law? No, it is. The 1993-law (with 2004-chanes) is (or was for current) full national retroactive. What is does mean "full national"? National - because, the act of retroactivity doesn't take into account the most of works, which was publicated outside Russia/USSR before 1973 and 1995 year. For example, UA-law - is now full international - Ukraine excluded such exceptions. Full - because, the act of retroactivity takes into account both old (published before some point of time) PD-because-old works and PD-because-uncopyrigted works. The respective exception for PD-because-uncopyrigted works (the many of photoworks were in this group) was excluded from Russian-law from article 28 in 2004. For exmaple, similar exception from protection still in AZ-law in second paragraph of Article 27. Alex Spade 18:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: simultaneous publication[edit]

I've come to the conclusion that the whole idea of "simultaneous publication in all SSRs" was a red herring. Instead, a territorial approach to copyright needs to be taken. This means that for a Soviet work that was first published in the Ukrainian SSR, apply Ukrainian law; for a work first published in the Russian SFSR, apply Russian law. This is backed by:

  • Newcity (Copyright Law in the Soviet Union, Praeger Publishers, New York 1978. ISBN 0-275-56450-9) writes (p. 49): "These Fundamentals of Civil Legislation [referring to the 1961 Fundamentals as amended in 1973—Lupo] [...] constitute detailed standards to which the civil codes of the 15 union republics must conform. Under the Soviet federal system, the central government of the USSR is empowered to adopt such legislative standards, but the final responsibility for actually adopting laws rests with the individual republics. [...] The RSFSR is the largest of the 15 union republics that make up the USSR and includes the two major centers of publishing in that country, Moscow and Leningrad. The overwhelming bulk of Soviet publishing is done in the RSFSR. Thus, in most cases, the copyright law of the RSFSR [i.e., the 1964 RSFSR Civil Code, as amended up to 1978 when Newcity wrote this—Lupo] will be the statute governing disputes concerning authors' rights. ..." Also, if a Moscow publisher distributed and sold a book also in the Ukrainian SSR, that wouldn't make it "simultaneously" published. The fact that I can buy books in, say, France that are printed and sold by a publisher in the U.S. doesn't make these books simultaneously published in France. But if a Ukrainian publisher printed and sold the book (under some license agreement with the Moscow publisher) within 30 days, then it would be simultaneously published.
  • In Itar-Tass v. Russian Kurier, the U.S. court mostly considered the copyright law of the Russian SFSR, not the federal USSR "fundamentals". That also seems to support the territorial view. Same for Jove Films v. Berov.
  • Janice T. Pilch also seems to operate under the territorial interpretation. She never mentions simultaneous publication, and the case examples she gives in her article series make only sense if one assumes strict territoriality of copyright. See her articles:
  • Understanding Copyright Law for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Materials, SEEIR 4(1), pp. 75 – 101; 2003.
  • Current Copyright Legislation of the CIS Nations and its Relevance for U.S. Library Collections: The Laws of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova, SEEIR 5(1/2), pp. 81 – 122; 2004.
  • Current Copyright Legislation of the CIS Nations and its Relevance for U.S. Library Collections: The Laws of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, SEEIR 6(1), pp. 101 - 141, 2005.
SEEIR is the journal Slavic and East European Information Resources published by the Haworth Information Press; ISSN 1522-8886. Pilch is a librarian, not a lawyer, but it appears she got help from both Michael Newcity and Peter B. Maggs for these articles. Maggs and Newcity appear to be the leading U.S. authorities on issues of Soviet copyright law.
  • Michiel Elst (Copyright, Freedom of Speech, and Cultural Policy in the Russian Federation, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston, 2005; ISBN 9-004-14087-5; a comprehensive 700-page treatise; see in particular pp. 486ff) emphasizes the strict territoriality of copyright laws, and makes a number of references that lead me to believe that actually this "per-SSR" interpretation may be right. Also, the internal structure of the USSR and its legal system seem to support this view. Union-wide federal laws had to be implemented at the SSR level by individual laws in each SSR. All these SSRs had their own copyright laws! These republic laws could not contradict the federal law, but they could go beyond the federal law and they could and did differ between SSRs. The efforts of Russia after the demise of the USSR to coordinate the copyrights on Soviet works amongst the CIS nations (the Moscow agreement in 1993) further corroborate this strictly territorial view.

Lupo 09:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment All above there are private comments , not legal solutions . It would be necessary to analyze the subject on a basis of international copyright law.

Second: To Alex Spade - there are supplemental (not contradictionary) questions - the question of simultaneous publication the photo by all-union state agencies, the question of simultaneous publication at the whole area of SU , question or proper securing of copyright (in 1925 Soviet regulations) - and in the final result copyfree using , question of legal succesors (if any) of Soviet institutions. Anywhere - post-Soviet photos are not the subject of sole jurisdiction of Russian Federation, but all of the succesors.

Finally - it seems to be necessary to plain and detailed explanation in contra - taking into account all elements described above.

Best regards. Andros64 14:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Private comments maybe, but by well-known and established experts and two actual court cases. Lupo 16:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said - the simultaneous publication is possible. It's possible that in some Post-Soviet states - this image is in PD. But this image is PD-because-uncopyrighted and this aspect is missing in Berne Convention in definition of state of origin. The respective article about time of protection at simultaneous publication says that it is equalized the time of protection (PD-because-old), but not equalized features of protection. Again for example, PD-NASA and PD-USGov is nothing for Russian-law, PD-RU-exempt for foreign signs is nothing for USA-law. Alex Spade 16:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Wrecking![edit]

  • Keep'Keep' -- this is an idiotic discussion. Wait until the USSR sues Jimbo before worrying about this. Meanwhile, stop burning and wrecking for the sake of that warm feeling in your cold heart. — Xiong熊talk* 12:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'Keep' - No copyright violation here, new law does not cover works that has been pd. It can be retroactive, but it can not make already a pd work a copyrighted work again. (:) I wouldn't care even if it did, it's Wikimedia's problem, I wanna see these pictures here and that's how I use my vote). --TimBits 18:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I wanna see this" is a rather nonsensical reason. And we don't vote here. Besides, yes, copyrights can be restored. Has happened multiple times in several places: in 1995 in the EU, in 1996 for foreign works in the U.S., and also in 1993 and on January 1, 2008 in Russia. And just to show that this isn't a modern phenomenon: it has also happened in 1923 in Switzerland. Lupo 11:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has never happened and besides I don't have to satisfy your need for sense, as you can see we are voting here. :)--TimBits 15:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'Keep'. Originally copyrighted by TASS, Public domain --sk 02:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, the Russian copyright law says otherwise. Lupo 11:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, Berne Convention ( Soviet Union have recognised it in 1974) and all its legal successors after 1991 ( 12 republics- including Russia) - too - as an international treaty is supreme over internal state regulations. Andros64 11:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point of this nomination is not whether the image was copyrighted in the U.S. The point is that the image is copyrighted in Russia. Commons requires an image to be PD in both the U.S. and in the source country. Besides, get your facts straight: the USSR never joined the Berne Convention. Russia did, in 1995. And so did the other successor states, after the demise of the Soviet Union. Lupo 11:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentThe country of publication is Soviet Union ( at all its territory, not sole Russia - half of the population of SU ). There was only all-Union copyright law, not specific regulations of the republics.( the was no specific regulations for Russian SSR, Ukrainian SSR, Georgian SSR and so on. The same way Serbia is not the only legal succesor of former Yugoslavia( it is also Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, FYROM. Of course - in Russia - according to its internal jurisdiction - terms and conditions of securing copyright may be shorter , then in Ukraine for example. But it does not deprive photo a status of PD abroad if it is acknowledged as PD in any other successing state - member of former Soviet Union. It is a matter of internal regulations in Russian Federation, but not abroad. In conclusion it is not binding for Commons. I repeat again - the state of publication is en:Soviet Union, not Russia ( nor Ukraine, nor Georgia, nor Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbejdzan , Turkmenistan or so on ) - all legal successors of SU. Andros64 11:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Andros64. You still don't understand. Yes, the POV about simultaneous publication is possible. But, image must be free in USA and in country(ies) of origin - the Berne Convention equalize time of protection (it equalizes terms of PD-because-old), if work was publicated simultaneously in different states, but it doesn't equalize features of protection (it doesn't equalize terms of PD-because-fundamentally-uncopyrighted). Yes, it's possible that this image is PD in some post-Soviet states - it can be PD-because-fundamentally-uncopyrighted. But, in some post-Soviet states (for you position they are countries of origin) this work is copyrighted. So, demand "Free in USA and country(ies) of origin" is not completed. Alex Spade 12:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep'Keep' --84.135.64.183 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Testus 12:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Dezidor 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously it's in Public Domain. Elk Salmon 10:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yarikmsu 16:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back of Aspect "Work made for Hire" 2[edit]

 Comment Well , there are still no evidence presented that the image has gone under copyright retroactively in Russia since Jan. 2008, only claims that this might be the case. Therefore the discussion is useless until proven by a reliable source showing that the status of the image has changed somehow. The way deletion nominators have interpreted the Russian copyright law is not going to be good enough for a reason to delete the image I'm afraid.--Termer 21:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Termer. You fogot, I had already said to you, that 2008-changes is totally unimpotant in this case. This image is copyrighted according to both 1993-law and 2004-law. The first of them was retroactive. Alex Spade 10:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never forgot that this is your opinion. In case your opinion was a fact, the image would have been deleted long time ago. The fact is, the image is in PD Russia as Works belonging to the former Soviet government or other Soviet legal entities published before January 1st, 1954 since it's work created during official duties, meaning military service. There is nothing more to it. --Termer 21:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are jumping from one aspect (2008) to other (work for hire). This is no good. You just still doesn't understand meaning of phrase "Works belonging to the former Soviet government or other Soviet legal entities". This phrase is saying about initial copyrights of legal entities - it appear only in three cases, which are described in begining of topic - this aspect was long discussed and cheked in Ru-Wiki, and ru:Template:PD-Russia was changes according it. The changes of 2008 year (in the aspect of retroacivity) are still being discussed and ru:Template:PD-Russia-2008 was created, but now it is still additional template, not replacement for old. As I said, you can check thesis about "Works belonging to..." in the commentary to Russian copyright law by Gavrilov E.P. (one of leading specialist in science of Russian copyright law)[8] in the end of commentary in point 11-16. Alex Spade 22:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do understand Works belonging to the former Soviet government.. just fine. It's no different than working for a Hollywood studio and "Works belonging to Hollywood studios". Unless you have a contract with them saying that you have certain rights to your work left, it's all theirs, including the authors rights etc. The only difference between Hollywood and former Soviet government is that all works belonging to former Soviet government published before 1954 are in PD-Russia. if anything has changed regarding this fact retroactively since Jan 2008 has to be proven yet. --Termer 22:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, you don't. You still are jumping, 2008 is nothing in this case. You still doesn't understand or even try to read commentaries, what is "Works belonging to..." and "Works for Hire" in Soviet and Russian law. The Gavrilov's commentaries (which is recomended to you) was published in 1996. Just open it, translate and read. I could cite necessary paragraphs in commentaries, but it would be a copyright violation, because such citation was too large. If you don't trust, you can consult with any Commons-Administrators which are fluent in Russian. Alex Spade 05:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thats fine in case 2008 is nothing in this case then the image continues to be in PD Russia like it has been since it was uploaded. --Termer 05:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, it wasn't. You are wrong. Open commentary and read them at last.
              You said "I think that...", I said "The an authoritative source say that...". The opinions of authoritative sources can be come up with each other. Our self opinions is lesser important.
              Your attempt to analize the Soviet/Russian law via your understanding of US-law is bad or even stupid idea. They are very different. It must be analized separately and in theis interactions, but it can be analized one via other. Alex Spade 07:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              Well, I think it's bad idea to delete an image that is free because it's in PD-Russia. Despite the fact that Russian nationalism has chosen to take pride in their Soviet past and this image might compromise it since the guy has 2 wrist watches on that might suggest he has been looting. Everybody has always known why there have been so many deletion attempts, but it seems you are not aware of it that it has never worked. So keep trying to delete the image in case you think the guy on the image is a looter. He might have just used 2 watches, one for local another for seeing what time it is at home. I'm out of here.--Termer 21:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              Your had got two authoritative commentaries of our case (Gavrilov's + Supreme Court's), which said - this image isn't PD-Russia. If you find other authoritative opinion - present it - and let's compare them. Alex Spade 17:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breakdown[edit]

Keep amen we cannot erase history

Keep You think the Russians mind this picture standing here, as a triumph to the magnificent victory? Copyright = right to copy. We cannot erase history.

Also it says:

"This file is in the public domain in Russia. It was published before January 1, 1954, and the creator (if known) died before that date (For veterans of the Great Patriotic War, the critical date is January 1, 1950). Works belonging to the former Soviet government or other Soviet legal entities published before January 1st, 1954, are also public domain in Russia." On the copyright, so... Stop arguing.

In the Soviet Union has an "copyright" never given. The Owner of the Rights of Chaldey is a woman, who live in Germany. She have a sentence, ho give her grandpa all rights of the fotos from 1945. --87.185.233.249 20:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breakdown[edit]

"Касаемо двух часов на руке: Да мародёр он, ежу понятно! Да только какой солдат не берёт трофеи! И как бы то ни было, это всё равно останется историей, без монтажа и вырезок, это будет правдой, из песни слов не выкинешь! Я думаю, надо оставить! Абдулла"

Ты ёж что ли, чурка? За обвинение ответить сможешь? Yarikmsu 16:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wrist watch might be compass, as the person in hand is apparently an officer, despite the soldier rank the flag raiser could not posess this item. Dmitry.

That was a compass. --Pianist 01:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Ok, a lot of people will not like this decision (and me), but after reading this whole discussion several times (including serveral of the linked documents) and learning more about Russian law than I ever wanted, I have to say that the arguments from Alex Spade and Lupo are much more plausible than those of Termer and Andros64. There is serious doubt that this image is PD-Russia and serious doubt is enough not to keep it on Commons. You still can upload it on your local Wikipedias as 'fair use' (if 'fair use' is allowed there), but here only images without doubt are acceptable. If you don't have a local copy and want it for your local WP as 'fair use' image, send me a mail. Don't forget to name the WP, for which it is destined. Cecil 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Reichstag_flag.jpg&oldid=304282425"