Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sahib Bibi aur Ghulam (1962).webm

File:Sahib Bibi aur Ghulam (1962).webm

Indian film directed by Abrar Alvi (1927-2009) published in 1962. It is clearly copyrighted in its country of origin (India has a protection of 60 years pma). Günther Frager (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

 Keep - Copyright of Indian films does not depend on the death of their directors. "In the case of cinematograph films, sound recordings.......the 60-year period is counted from the date of publication." (verify from this copyright handbook). -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, but then it means it entered in the Indian public domain in 2023, but it was copyrighted in 1996 at URAA time, so it has its US copyright restored. Günther Frager (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

* Keep: per Bodhisattwa. Ratekreel (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete: (converting from keep, missed URAA earlier) I searched US copyright catalogue and found it was not registered and hence was in public domain in US until copyright was restored by URAA and now expires in 2057 (1962 + 95). Additionally, I found that copyright was re-registered in India under ROC number CF-5465/2023 but that makes no sense legally since it's copyright term has already expired in India and there's no provision for renewal, but I'm not sure why it was registered by Copyright Office. Ratekreel (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

 Comment- I have added {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} in the license and that should be enough to keep the file on Commons. See this film for example. Re-registering by Indian Copyright Office does not renew the copyright of the original movie published back in 1962, which was uploaded here and the film is still under public domain in India. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

See this deletion request for this film as an reference. Pinging @Racconish: for his attention to this similar deletion request. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think adding template changes anything here. The template is for URAA affected files which were uploaded to Commons before the the US court upheld the constitutionality of URAA so that those files will be reviewed individually, see Commons:Licensing#Uruguay Round Agreements Act. The WP PD Review is inactive and I think DR is the best place to review these affected files until we settle on consensus for a way forward. Ratekreel (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

As the template {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} indicates, it cannot be used in files uploaded after March 1, 2012 (this case), and its documentation clearly states: «Files uploaded after this date which the template would apply to should be treated as other violations of the Commons:Licensing policy are.» The DR you mention argues that there is no consensus citing Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA, a resolution from 2014. The problem is that this resolution was shortly afterwards superseded by Commons:Review of Precautionary principle, as stated in a note in the former. Günther Frager (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's my point actually. There is no consensus on Commons on whether or not keep files which are under {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. We currently have more than 15,000 files under this category. So, until this is sorted out by consensus, this particular file should not have any issue to be on Commons like the rest of these files. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not about consensus, COM:L and COM:PCP are official policies, people cannot ignore them. The official policy for URAA is here . Also, the big size of a backlog doesn't mean we should not care about it. Using this excuse, we should allow files from YouTube with or without CC-BY licenses. There are severa causes of big backlogs. The obvious one is the lack of file reviewers. Another is the difficulty of the reviewing URAA files: one needs to know the local legislation in 1996. In France, for example, the protection was 50 years instad of 70, there is an extension for WWII and there is yet another extension if the person died for France, etc. The other reason is that URAA was considered unconstitutional ... until the US Supreme Court declared it constitutional in 2012 (the reason on the date in the template). Günther Frager (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)