Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anthem-of-Ukraine Chorus Veryovka.ogg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The text and the music of the anthem are public domain definitely. But I see no evidence that performing of the anthem is PD too. Neither I can access the link on descpage to check whether it was realized into PD somehow else. BaseSat (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep It is official Ukrainian anthem, it is PD-UA-exempt as state symbol.--Anatoliy (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)- The page has moved to http://static.rada.gov.ua/site/const/GimnUkraineVerevki.mp3 . The performance provided here is an official one, which is performed by the state Veryovka Chorus (founded by the Ukrainian Government), and it is usually this version that is performed in the parliament. This is an official recording of the anthem made by the Parliament of Ukraine (Verkhovna Rada), and it should fall under {{PD-UA-exempt}} as a state symbol — NickK (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- But do we have a law that official performance are automatically in public domain? I don't know such. The official symbol is the text and the music sheets (The Law about National Anthem of Ukraine), not a performance. The same as performance of folk music which is PD by the same article of the law as official symbols is protected by copyright too. Ukraine is not USA where almost anything in .gov sites is PD. --BaseSat (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- The Law about National Anthem of Ukraine falls under article 10c of the copyright law (official documents of a political, legislative or administrative nature), while the anthem itself falls under article 10d of the copyright law (State symbols of Ukraine). I would be quite surprised if government website had published a recording by a government-funded chorus that was not in public domain — NickK (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about copyright to the law, sure all Ukrainian laws' texts are in PD. I referred to this law because it gives the definition about what the national anthem is. And the anthem is not it's performance. So performance isn't a state symbol of Ukraine. Nor I see in the law version adapted to the chorus (I'm bad at music but I believe there must be done some creative non-trivial work to create chorus version of a song). --BaseSat (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- State symbol is whole song.--Anatoliy (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Song, true. Performence of a song isn't a song itself. --BaseSat (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Citing the law, Державним Гімном України є національний гімн на музику М. Вербицького із словами першого куплету. The law defines that the anthem (state symbol) is the anthem with defined music and defined words. I wonder what else you can do with this definition in order to produce the anthem other than perform the music while singing the words. I am not sure whether this is a non-trivial adaptation for chorus, but in any case this adaptation was done by the government-owned chorus which is in charge of official performances of this anthem in the parliament. The parliament's website does not inform that this work is copyrighted by the chorus, the only restriction is При використанні даних обов’язкове посилання на сайт Верховної Ради України. It is really strange to suppose that parliament's website violates copyright of government's chorus, but even if you think this is the case, the correct action is to contact their website administrator in order to clarify the status — NickK (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Goverment's site isn't under PD or free license. Nor is parliament's TV chanel Rada broadcast and nor are other things except for those which fall to PD by the article of the copyright law cited in PD-UA template. So I don't understand why do you consider goverment's chorus work as defaultly PD. For us it's not important that there are no "© All rights reserved" line. For us it's rather important that there are no line which allows any use/reuse/adaptation of the content including commertial. Can you link to the page on Parliament's website which states such conditions? The line you said about says nothing about commertial use which is essential for us. --BaseSat (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- The parliament's website is under При використанні даних обов’язкове посилання на сайт Верховної Ради України, which corresponds to {{Attribution}} (check http://static.rada.gov.ua/site/const/ to make sure these are the terms of use of the page with the anthem) — NickK (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- {{Attribution}} is "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed." (italic mine). The Verkhovna Rada's site doesn't say about any purpose. There should be clear statement of that otherwise we cant assume that thay allow any use including commercial. --BaseSat (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- This phrase does not impose any restrictions: if you say you can use it, it does not mean you cannot use it for commercial purposes. If there is a public domain material published on the website available under {{Attribution}}, published by a government entity with all authors working for the government, I do not see who is restricting the purpose of usage. If you still find that the confirmation is unclear, you may contact them for an OTRS permission, but I wonder who is violating copyright and whose copyright is being violated — NickK (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Do you think e.g. this [1] verbatim is {{Attribution}} too? --BaseSat (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I do think that it could be legitimately published under {{Attribution}}: either as a work made by an employee (where Parliament acts as an employer), or as публічне сповіщення публічно виголошених промов, звернень, доповідей та інших подібних творів (article 21.9 of the copyright law). Once again, you may ask the parliament about the nature of copyright relationships between the parliament and the deputies who are employees of the parliament if you find it relevant — NickK (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- What is your ground to consider that parliament's employees give up their copyright? If we extend that then per you we may consider all works by employees of budget sphere (most school and university teachers, doctors, scientists, etc.) did as part of their work as PD. It sounds like some communism or thing like that to me. The article 21.9 of the copyright law probably indeed covers that thing with verbatim but unfortunately it can't be applied to the nomination's subject. --BaseSat (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- My ground is that the parliament is a sufficiently respectable institution in order not to violate the law they have adopted themselves. The difference between a teacher and a lawmaker is that teachers do not adopt laws, while parliament should normally abide the laws adopted by themselves. Your major doubt seems to be that the parliament did not have sufficient permission to publish this file under a license similar to {{Attribution}}, if you want to check under which conditions performers have permitted the parliament to use this file, you may try to ask the parliament and register their response via OTRS — NickK (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- So teachers' works aren't PD just because they violate some law? --BaseSat (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, but because instead of having one employer who is supposed to clearly know the copyright law and is interested in reproducing their works (i.e. the parliament) they have multiple employers who have generally nothing to do with their works (i.e. schools). I do believe however that if a school asks a teacher to make a recording of a public domain work as a part of his/her responsibilities, the school will be free to publish this work under a free license — NickK (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Could you refer per which article of which law you believe so? --BaseSat (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- 16 — NickK (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Could you refer per which article of which law you believe so? --BaseSat (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, but because instead of having one employer who is supposed to clearly know the copyright law and is interested in reproducing their works (i.e. the parliament) they have multiple employers who have generally nothing to do with their works (i.e. schools). I do believe however that if a school asks a teacher to make a recording of a public domain work as a part of his/her responsibilities, the school will be free to publish this work under a free license — NickK (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- So teachers' works aren't PD just because they violate some law? --BaseSat (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- My ground is that the parliament is a sufficiently respectable institution in order not to violate the law they have adopted themselves. The difference between a teacher and a lawmaker is that teachers do not adopt laws, while parliament should normally abide the laws adopted by themselves. Your major doubt seems to be that the parliament did not have sufficient permission to publish this file under a license similar to {{Attribution}}, if you want to check under which conditions performers have permitted the parliament to use this file, you may try to ask the parliament and register their response via OTRS — NickK (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- What is your ground to consider that parliament's employees give up their copyright? If we extend that then per you we may consider all works by employees of budget sphere (most school and university teachers, doctors, scientists, etc.) did as part of their work as PD. It sounds like some communism or thing like that to me. The article 21.9 of the copyright law probably indeed covers that thing with verbatim but unfortunately it can't be applied to the nomination's subject. --BaseSat (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- I do think that it could be legitimately published under {{Attribution}}: either as a work made by an employee (where Parliament acts as an employer), or as публічне сповіщення публічно виголошених промов, звернень, доповідей та інших подібних творів (article 21.9 of the copyright law). Once again, you may ask the parliament about the nature of copyright relationships between the parliament and the deputies who are employees of the parliament if you find it relevant — NickK (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Do you think e.g. this [1] verbatim is {{Attribution}} too? --BaseSat (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- This phrase does not impose any restrictions: if you say you can use it, it does not mean you cannot use it for commercial purposes. If there is a public domain material published on the website available under {{Attribution}}, published by a government entity with all authors working for the government, I do not see who is restricting the purpose of usage. If you still find that the confirmation is unclear, you may contact them for an OTRS permission, but I wonder who is violating copyright and whose copyright is being violated — NickK (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- {{Attribution}} is "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed." (italic mine). The Verkhovna Rada's site doesn't say about any purpose. There should be clear statement of that otherwise we cant assume that thay allow any use including commercial. --BaseSat (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- The parliament's website is under При використанні даних обов’язкове посилання на сайт Верховної Ради України, which corresponds to {{Attribution}} (check http://static.rada.gov.ua/site/const/ to make sure these are the terms of use of the page with the anthem) — NickK (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Goverment's site isn't under PD or free license. Nor is parliament's TV chanel Rada broadcast and nor are other things except for those which fall to PD by the article of the copyright law cited in PD-UA template. So I don't understand why do you consider goverment's chorus work as defaultly PD. For us it's not important that there are no "© All rights reserved" line. For us it's rather important that there are no line which allows any use/reuse/adaptation of the content including commertial. Can you link to the page on Parliament's website which states such conditions? The line you said about says nothing about commertial use which is essential for us. --BaseSat (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- State symbol is whole song.--Anatoliy (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about copyright to the law, sure all Ukrainian laws' texts are in PD. I referred to this law because it gives the definition about what the national anthem is. And the anthem is not it's performance. So performance isn't a state symbol of Ukraine. Nor I see in the law version adapted to the chorus (I'm bad at music but I believe there must be done some creative non-trivial work to create chorus version of a song). --BaseSat (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- The Law about National Anthem of Ukraine falls under article 10c of the copyright law (official documents of a political, legislative or administrative nature), while the anthem itself falls under article 10d of the copyright law (State symbols of Ukraine). I would be quite surprised if government website had published a recording by a government-funded chorus that was not in public domain — NickK (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- But do we have a law that official performance are automatically in public domain? I don't know such. The official symbol is the text and the music sheets (The Law about National Anthem of Ukraine), not a performance. The same as performance of folk music which is PD by the same article of the law as official symbols is protected by copyright too. Ukraine is not USA where almost anything in .gov sites is PD. --BaseSat (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: As per NicKK Natuur12 (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)