Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:March of the Volunteers
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.
Files in Category:March of the Volunteers
[edit]Copyright concerns:
- The modern arrangement of the piece was written by Li Huanzhi,[1] who died in 2000. The US Navy Band version is similar enough to the official version used by the Chinese government that it qualifies as a derivative work of Li's arrangement. The arrangement was first made official in 1954, so it will be out of copyright around 2049 in the US if the song was published with a copyright notice at any point (I don't know if it was), and since Li died in 2000 it will be out of copyright at the end of 2050 in the PRC (China) and ROC (Taiwan) according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory.
- The lyrics are still copyrighted in China and Taiwan, since Tian Han died in 1968, and will be out of copyright in both countries at the end of 2018. They may be copyrighted until 2030 in the US depending on whether the song's copyright was registered and renewed (I don't know this information).
- File:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg
- File:March of the Volunteers.png
- File:中华人民共和国国歌 (五线谱版).png
- File:中华人民共和国国歌 (简谱版).png
Jc86035 (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep It's well known that the song's copyrights were owned by Pathe Records, not by its authors, and the PRC acquired the copyrights from Pathe when it decided to make it China's national anthem. Since the copyrights were not owned by individuals, its authors' dates of death are not relevant and the work enters public domain 50 years after publication per Chinese law, which is long past. And whatever work Li Huanzhi has done, it's merely derivative work, and as the source indicates, he is almost never credited. It's ridiculous to suggest that Li owned copyright to China's national anthem: his heir would surely be China's richest person if it was the case. -Zanhe (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Zanhe: Who would have held the copyright to the arrangement, or would such a thing have been waived by the government? Is an arrangement not copyrightable? There's a passage at w:zh:義勇軍進行曲 which indicates that the lyrics are still copyrighted. Jc86035 (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Communist China nationalized all major businesses and cultural institutions in the country, so Li almost certainly did the work as a government employee, in which case the copyright would be owned by the government (and expired by now). It simply stretches the boundary of credulity to suggest China would let an individual own copyrights to its national anthem, allowing him to charge royalties from pretty much every single citizen, school, business, and government office in the country. The passage you refer to at the Chinese wiki page only mentions minor modifications done by others to Tian Han's original lyrics, which is irrelevant as Pathe Records owned rights to the song anyway, which was acquired by the PRC government. -Zanhe (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Zanhe: Are the lyrics, melody and arrangement also fine in the US? Pathé could not have held rights to the arrangement, so if it wasn't released as PD in the 1950s it still wouldn't be PD now. Jc86035 (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- The lyrics and melody are from the 1930s, so copyrights expired in the 1980s and meets PD-1996 for US purposes. As for the arrangements, I really don't think it should even be considered a factor. I just reread the Shanghai gov source you presented, and it clearly says that many different arrangements exist, and it was only in 2016 that Shanghai Music Press tried to designate Li Huanzhi's version as the standard (and it's not even certain whether the new standard has been adopted by the national government or only applies in Shanghai). -Zanhe (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Well, no. Even if we assume the original melody is PD in both country of origin and the US, it's well established that new arrangements of old works can be protected by copyright (see for example [1]), so it does matter what the arrangement is. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- I never said new arrangements cannot be copyrighted, what I meant is there's no known author for the version being nominated for deletion (or most versions of the anthem). The only known author of an arrangement, Li Huanzhi, worked for the government at the Central Conservatory of Music and Central Chinese Orchestra. -Zanhe (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Well, no. Even if we assume the original melody is PD in both country of origin and the US, it's well established that new arrangements of old works can be protected by copyright (see for example [1]), so it does matter what the arrangement is. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- The lyrics and melody are from the 1930s, so copyrights expired in the 1980s and meets PD-1996 for US purposes. As for the arrangements, I really don't think it should even be considered a factor. I just reread the Shanghai gov source you presented, and it clearly says that many different arrangements exist, and it was only in 2016 that Shanghai Music Press tried to designate Li Huanzhi's version as the standard (and it's not even certain whether the new standard has been adopted by the national government or only applies in Shanghai). -Zanhe (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Zanhe: Are the lyrics, melody and arrangement also fine in the US? Pathé could not have held rights to the arrangement, so if it wasn't released as PD in the 1950s it still wouldn't be PD now. Jc86035 (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Communist China nationalized all major businesses and cultural institutions in the country, so Li almost certainly did the work as a government employee, in which case the copyright would be owned by the government (and expired by now). It simply stretches the boundary of credulity to suggest China would let an individual own copyrights to its national anthem, allowing him to charge royalties from pretty much every single citizen, school, business, and government office in the country. The passage you refer to at the Chinese wiki page only mentions minor modifications done by others to Tian Han's original lyrics, which is irrelevant as Pathe Records owned rights to the song anyway, which was acquired by the PRC government. -Zanhe (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Zanhe: Who would have held the copyright to the arrangement, or would such a thing have been waived by the government? Is an arrangement not copyrightable? There's a passage at w:zh:義勇軍進行曲 which indicates that the lyrics are still copyrighted. Jc86035 (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Also, China's national anthem is officially published as part of the legal code, see 中华人民共和国国歌法. Per Template:PD-PRC-exempt, laws, regulations, and other administrative documents are public domain. -Zanhe (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Zanhe: Is the full score of the commonly used arrangement part of the legal code? The sheet music images don't even include the chords which are used in the modern arrangement, so we can't automatically presume that the recording is PD-China just because of that page. I'm also not sure if it has any bearing on the US copyright status, which is more important for WMF wikis. Jc86035 (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- The US generally treats foreign PD works as PD. The main exception I know of is the URAA restoration of expired foreign copyrights. -Zanhe (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Zanhe: Is the full score of the commonly used arrangement part of the legal code? The sheet music images don't even include the chords which are used in the modern arrangement, so we can't automatically presume that the recording is PD-China just because of that page. I'm also not sure if it has any bearing on the US copyright status, which is more important for WMF wikis. Jc86035 (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Notifying Horserice and Nikkimaria from discussion at w:en:Talk:Hong Kong. Jc86035 (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- For the images in Category:March of the Volunteers:
Speedy keep for File:D1121029.JPG: disc cover published in 1935Speedy keep for all sheet music images without lyrics: they are all simple version, without chords or lyrics, composed by Nie Er who died in 1935, and are also attachment from PRC National Anthem Law or Macau equivalent lawSpeedy keep for File:中华人民共和国国歌 (1978-1982).ogg: simple version, without chords or lyrics, composed by Nie Er, and made by User:Zscout370(I thought these files are nominated for deletion but actually they're not)- Keep for File:March of the Volunteers.png, File:中华人民共和国国歌 (五线谱版).png and File:中华人民共和国国歌 (简谱版).png: although the lyrics' author Tian Han died in 1968 making its copyright seemingly expire at the end of 2018, they are attachment from PRC National Anthem Law or Macau equivalent law thus not eligible for copyright
- Keep or Weak keep for File:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg: US Navy performed version with chords, well, it's a little tricky here, but I think the chords are really minimal in it. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Tomchen1989: The "simple version" isn't nominated for deletion, nor is the disc cover. I think you can't just say the accompaniment is "minimal", given that it has multiple chords not in the original and that it has some sort of countermelody, ornamentation and a drum part, and those components on their own could be said to have some originality. It's somewhat likely that its copyright has expired or has been waived, but we don't know that right now. Jc86035 (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, my bad, I thought you nominated all files in Category:March of the Volunteers for deletion. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Tomchen1989: The "simple version" isn't nominated for deletion, nor is the disc cover. I think you can't just say the accompaniment is "minimal", given that it has multiple chords not in the original and that it has some sort of countermelody, ornamentation and a drum part, and those components on their own could be said to have some originality. It's somewhat likely that its copyright has expired or has been waived, but we don't know that right now. Jc86035 (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep reason same as what stated by Zanhe. --Lvhis (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --JuTa 22:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)