Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kosarev and Bogachev repressions USSR.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

File:Kosarev and Bogachev repressions USSR.jpg

[edit]

Definitely not PD-RU-exempt. The author - Mikhail Kalashnikov - died in 1944, not PD until 2019 (see COM:CRT#Russia and former Soviet Union) Sealle (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is news report published in major mass market newspaper on the front page, therefore exempted as per tag. The fact that the author has died in the date specified is not disputed. If the tag is incorrect or conflicting it should be modified or deleted.--Armenius vambery (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Using the logic of Public Domain = date of death Apr 19 1944 + 74 years, the picture will become free in 27 days not in 2019--Armenius vambery (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know how to fix: the tag PD-Ukraine does not have 4 additional years, it is date of death + 70 years. So if used it is indisputable in PD. Correct? --Armenius vambery (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This in fact is completely wrong based on what I read using your links. Ukraine has the SAME rights as Russia to these images and was part of the same legal entities Russian SFSR (1917-22) and USSR (1922-1991). Therefore the statement is your personal opinion.--Armenius vambery (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, Pravda was not Ukrainian, but Russian newspaper. It was issued in Moscow, not in Ukraine. Taivo (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pravda was Soviet newspaper. Both Ukraine and Russia did not exist at the time. There is an excellent legal analysis if you follow Template talk:PD-Soviet, so in short according to Circular 38a from the U.S. Copyright Office "all its successor states (the CIS states) were considered the legal successors of the USSR in terms of copyright and were retroactively considered members of the UCC with an adherence date of May 27, 1973.--Armenius vambery (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. Well, and why did you stop quoting there? A work would be only PD outside the former USSR if it was PD in all CIS states. → all, not any of". 2. Template:PD-Soviet is not a valid license tag on Commons. Sealle (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is whether Pravda is RU or UA. I did not use PD-Soviet. I think that instead of finding the solutions, you always try to find the problems which in fact discourage new users as myself to contribute. Very sad. --Armenius vambery (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


But in fact User Sealle is wrong stating that PD-RU is not applicable to this image even using his own hyperlinks. Direct quote related to this dispute (the image published during the author lifetime): "On July 28, 2004, Russia modified its 1993 law by extending the copyright term from 50 to 70 years p.m.a, but only for works that were still copyrighted on that date. See the Russian law of July 28, 2004 (in Russian). That means that any work whose 50-year copyright term from the 1993 law had expired by July 28, 2004 is in the public domain in Russia. In other words: Soviet works of authors who had died before January 1, 1954 are in the public domain in Russia, if the work had been published during the author's lifetime." Therefore, the image is indisputable in PD in Russia and Ukraine. Please remove the tag and let me nominate the image. --Armenius vambery (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I have posted the text from the link you provided. What is incorrect? General remark from my side: you should encourage people to contribute not threaten them in every post. Please let me know the link to the policy which allow me to arbitrate your actions?--Armenius vambery (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
please let me know how to arbitrate. I believe Sealle abuses the administrative rights: I have the record to share.--Armenius vambery (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Files in Commons must be free in two countries: source country and USA. There's awful law in USA called URAA, which requires from every work not in public domain in URAA date (1996 for Russia) 95 years from publishing. So 1938 Russian photos are copyrighted in USA until January 2034 (95+1 years from publishing). Taivo (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if Kalashnikov died in 1944, then the photo is free in USA since January 1995, before URAA date. That case 95 years from publication is not required. But I must think about Russian copyright. Taivo (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But if Kalashnikov worked during WWII, then this gives +4 years ... His works fell into PD 4 years later, in 1999, which is after URAA date and 95 years from publishing is required. Taivo (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this image has high historical value, comes from the reliable source and is used to illustrate the point on the article Stalin, where it was discussed. It does not have the ready made substitute. The image is annotated and consciously not restored. Therefore to delete the image would be destructive action. It is PD free in all f-USSR countries (but Russia) and PD free in US. ALL successor states has EQUAL RIGHTS to the images published in USSR according to the US copyright office and it was discussed over and over and no one disputes this. It is nonsense to apply the laws where it does not fit (Russian laws has zero meaning outside Russia). Therefore, the whole "dispute" could be CONSTRUCTIVELY solved by changing the tag to PD-old-70-1996. --Armenius vambery (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Administrators closing deletion requests are expected to provide adequate explanation for their decision." Why we cannot use PD-old-70-1996? It is PD in 14 out of 15 states of f-USSR. All but Russia can use it now, Russia will use it from Jan 2019 (< than 7 months to wait).--Armenius vambery (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The file is not in public domain in Russia until 1 January 2019. Moreover it is copyrighted in USA until 1 January 2034. Ruslik (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once again why we need to DELETE the important file which is copyrighted in one country Ru (never used on its pages) and free in others fUSSR? Lets change the template, KEEP and USE where it is allowed. Please comment on the idea to use PD-old-70-1996. As in almost every case this work CAN be used in the countries where it is in PD and CANNOT be used where it is not (e.g. countries with copyright terms PMA 80 etc). It has never been used on Russian pages, so the concern is only for potential violation! And this concern is addressed by deleting someone contribution which is presently used. How the user calculated 1 Jan 2034 is unclear. --Armenius vambery (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Armenius vambery: The photo was taken in Russia and is thus still copyrighted by the heirs of Mikhail Kalashnikov worldwide until 1 January 2019, and in the USA until 1 January 2034, so we cannot use it until the latter date. Can you not wait seven months?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please share the calculations re. 1 January 2034?--Armenius vambery (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Armenius vambery: Photo was taken and published in Russia in 1938. Photographer died in 1944 in WW2. Copyright in Russia was extended from 70 years pma by another 4 years (due to WW2), so was set to expire after 1944+70+4=2018, on 1 January 2019. However, URAA intervened in 1996 while copyright was still in effect in Russia (and all fUSSR), making the copyright in the US expire after 1938+95=2033, on 1 January 2034.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: It is a new interpretation. Russia did not have the 70 years in 1996. It is THE FACT easily verifiable. Can you please provide the reference to this unprecedented URAA intervention? It is really super interesting. Thanks.--Armenius vambery (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Since it is one of its kind intervention (related to this artist, country?) which has never even been mentioned, I keen to see the original doc or any reference to any reliable source. Many thanks.--Armenius vambery (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


The logic applies to ALL work of this artist? e.g. other photos on Commons? --Armenius vambery (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


If it is such a clear cut case what do we dispute? I propose to use the logical arguments. Here is mine based on the refs (can provide all primary sources): where the photo is TAKEN does not have any relevance. The photo was PUBLISHED in USSR and therefore considered simultaneously published in ALL successor states by US patent office. It could be not in PD in Russia ONLY based on the Russian law which exclusively provides four year extension. It has no relevance outside of this country. How 2034 was calculated is not even explained. @Jeff G.: could you please provide your interpretation and calculations. Many thanks.--Armenius vambery (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Armenius vambery: 11 years ago, on 8-9 May 2006, @Lupo analyzed the situation in 5 edits resulting in this screed, which you partially quoted but neglected to attribute in this edit 09:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC), as seen above. Your quote did not go far enough, however. Even though the copyright had expired in Russia after 1938+15=1953, it was restored in Russia in 1993 through the end of 1944+50+4=1998. Since the copyright was in effect on 1 January 1996, it was extended in the US by the URAA 17 USC 104A through 1938+95=2033 until 1 January 2034. Because our rules prohibit hosting files whose copyright is in effect in the source country or the US unless we have permission, we therefore cannot host this file until 1 January 2034.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Thanks. I did read the very good interpretation by Lupo and I quoted what is relevant. I could not open your ref to the Unesco site: could you please send the ref (or the name of the doc) once again? You can also upload as the document to wiki-data. It is critical and your are the first, who found this important missing piece of information and it will help all the users with similar problems. I could not find where this 95 years in the equation 1938+95=2033 come from and it is apparently huge deviation from usual practice. --Armenius vambery (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: The link to US gov site works and direct quite "104a. Copyright in restored works (a) Automatic Protection and Term.— B) Any work in which copyright is restored under this section shall subsist for the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have otherwise been granted in the United States if the work never entered the public domain in the United States." Therefore even THEORETICALLY in 1996 the US gov could not give (restore) the protection more than 1944+50+4=1998 since the rule of the shorter term so it is long over.--Armenius vambery (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Armenius vambery: Please see http://web.archive.org/web/20060325063103/http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_download.php/971c5c431fcf38ddaa1f12200ffea790law_on_copyright.pdf and understand that the rule of the shorter term does not apply in the US.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: I like our discussion: I provide the exact argument in one/two sentences which everyone could understand (my intention), you send the links to the whole document and tell me look there. What should I look there? You send me the Russian Law on Copyright dated 1993, which is freely available elsewhere (e.g. Wikipedia) and I know the content and do not dispute. It does not show any copyright restoration to this specific artwork. Why do you argue that the rule of the shorter term does not apply in the US, even if these are the fundamentals of the copyright protection. By the way, using the cases provided as examples on the corresponding Wikipedia page US in 1996 should not grant this work any protection at all, since in Ukraine the rule was 1944+50=1994.--Armenius vambery (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Armenius vambery: Ukraine's rules do not matter to Wikimedia Commons in this case because we are bound by US law. You may be able to use this file on Ukrainian Wikipedia, I don't know their policies.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Where can I read that Ukraine copyright protection law (you call it "Ukraine rules") are not relevant to Commons? Or it is your personal opinion? Ukraine is used to determine the copyright status in US. The summary of the above discussion: we know as the FACT that on the critical date of 01 Jan 1996 the artwork did not have the legal protection in Ukraine since 1944+50=1994 and in PD. It COULD (subject to application) have the protection in Russia for 2 years since 1944+50+4=1988. Both countries have the same right to this artwork. See Circular 38a from the U.S. Copyright Office, at the end. Therefore, US legal protection using the Berne Сonvention specifically The Rule of The Shorter Term could not be restored even to 1988 and in PD in US. Rephrasing: if the work was in the public domain in the source country "through expiration of term of protection" on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 in most cases) the U.S. copyright is not restored.--Armenius vambery (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Armenius vambery: Where can I read that Ukraine copyright protection law are relevant to this file on Commons?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: How they could not be? The next hyperlink on my answer above shows that Ukraine has the SAME right to this work as any other countries of f-USSR. Not my opinion but decision of US patent office. This point never been disputed, and supported by analysis done previously, which can be accessed by links YOU sent. You prefer Russia to DELETE, I prefer Ukraine to KEEP and use the image on the article where it is needed and illustrates the point. Also use of Ukraine is completely in line with Rule of The Shorter Term, again hyperlinks provided above. Using your logic Ukraine did not have any images at all in this period: you (without reference) attributed all of them to Russia. Do I understand it correctly?--Armenius vambery (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: I propose to change the license to PD-old-70-1996 as originally proposed by Lupo and finalize the discussion. It is a crystal clear case.--Armenius vambery (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete... Overall, Sealle's analysis seems persuasive to me, and it seems pretty clear that URAA would apply. Not free in the US until 2034, but could likely be used on local wikis that allow Fair Use (i.e. both places it's currently in use) until then. Storkk (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - as per Storkk comment above. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kosarev_and_Bogachev_repressions_USSR.jpg&oldid=305711978"