Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Kosovo-exempt

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.

Template:PD-Kosovo-exempt

Kosovo is not a country, but a province of Serbia. Laws that a self-proclaimed Kosovan government enacts are about as valid as those of other joke countries like Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, etc. Liliana-60 (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment: Kosovo territory is disputed. Mentioning that these disputed territories a joke countries is a huge lack of neutral point of view (defending the position of a State or the International Community as the only valid), which exceeds the scope of a PD template. Taiwan is also a good example of territories disputed between the RoC and the PRC, and there is a PD template that belongs to the whole China.

At the moment, the template is valid. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. This nomination appears to be made in bad faith. Andy Mabbett (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

So does that mean that since we accept laws of joke countries, I can declare a law which makes all works PD in my home village, and it will be accepted on Commons? -- Liliana-60 (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Short answer: No, because you aren't a legislator of any State.

Long answer: You still supporting the position of only a one State (Serbia), ignoring the position of the most countries of the UN (108/193), including the US and the most of the members of the EU. If you still disagree, just ask to your government to change its mind about recognitions of countries, or elsewhere, edit Kosovo with your biased point of view and metioning it as a joke country, and it will be vandalism... that is ridiculous!

Commons is a Multimedia repository, not an entitie to recognize countries; that job belongs to the International Community. The Commons (and the most the whole the WMF) community should keep the NPOV in politics (regardless there is not an official NPOV policy, unlike Wikipedia); Commons will not change its policies, copyright/PD templates, etc, by the opinions of a pro-serbia (or pro or anti anything) user, without founded arguments.

By contrast, the Republic of China (founded at the begin of the XX century) lost the recognition from most of the countries (supporting the PRC), but is still a good example. That converts the RoC as a joke country? I seriously think you're just trolling. --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You're ignoring the fact that the International community does not recognize Kosovo as a separate country. The UN makes it clear that Kosovo is a province of Serbia, see the UN resolution 1244. This was confirmed by the International Court of Justice in 2010. What individual countries do is irrelevant, they can do whatever they want. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, there is no reason for deleting a PD template, that has been used on files that are effectivelly in the PD during before 2010. Unless the President and functioneers of the Government of Kosovo are monkeys, Speedy keep.

All files tagged with this template are copyright violations. Photographs are not PD in Kosovo. And in any case, the government doesn't even control all of the country - how are you gonna use a PD template if the law isn't even enforcable in all of the country? -- Liliana-60 (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This needs further discussion, but deleting a PD templated used in files years ago is not easy as mentioning Kosovo is a joke country (that is only a pro-Serbia opinion and not a fact). A Country (aka. State) is not the same as its territories, specially if are disputed. Who is right? Kosovo or Serbia? The Republic of China or the People Republic of China? --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This DR is not worth discussing. Nations that control a chunk of land in defiance of another nation's claim over that land, yet lack any real type of international recognization, are unfortunately common, but they aren't jokes, especially not to the people who live there, and are forced to follow the law of the groups that control that land, not the groups the international community say official control the land.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

May I also note that as per the w:Brussels Agreement (2013), Serbia does not treat the Kosovo government as a joke, merely its independence.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

So where's our {{PD-Islamic State}}, then? Wars happen all the time and it's simply infeasible for us to determine which warlords controlled which villages at a given time, and in which village (or even in which house) a work was published to consider whether its copyright status is to be determined by the laws of warlords A or B. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

If that ever gets to the point where they have a functioning government, pass copyright laws which have actual effect, and de facto control the territory for a while, then yes we may start to have that sort of thing. That has been the general result of these discussions for a while now (Palestine, etc.). We have {{PD-NKR-exempt}} for example. It may be more of a question of what law actually applies to the author in their location, or location of publication. There are messy situations to be sure, but we have generally tried to respect the laws that exist (Berne country or not). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Does Iraq and Syria recognize the right for the Islamic State to control the territory it does, like the Brussels Agreement? Does any other nation recognize ISIS? 108 nations recognize Kosovo, and that UN resolution 1244 you mention is completely irrelevant as it predates the declaration of independence by a decade. The kicker here is that Serbia recognizes Kosovo law, if not Kosovo independence, as per the Brussels Agreement. Treating Kosovo as a province of Serbia actually does not make this template any less relevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

 Keep Obviously there is a territory where the law supporting this PD status is enforced. What is debatable is if adding a Serbian copyright template to the same files would be OK or not - the same question could be also debatable for Taiwan and mainland China.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't there some sort of Commons agreement (at least for Crimea) to make which copyright law to apply to works created in disputed territories depend on the citizenship of the creator?    FDMS  4    06:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• This deletion request is malformed. The Berne Convention lists three things which identify the source country of a work: the country of first publication, the country of residence of the author and the country of citizenship of the author. If you sue someone in a court, the court would interpret the word 'country' according to the point of view of the country where the court is located. If the court is located in a country which recognises the statehood of Kosovo, then the court determines that the country of publication/residence/citizenship is Kosovo. If the court is located in a country which doesn't recognise the statehood of Kosovo, then the court determines that the country of publication/residence/citizenship is either Serbia or terra nullius, depending on the point of view of that country. What this means to the copyright status of the work depends on how the country treats works from Kosovo, Serbia and terra nullius. See for example this case where the term 'country' in the Berne Convention was interpreted by a Japanese court with respect to North Korea. Japan doesn't recognise the statehood of North Korea.

The problem for Commons is that Commons policy says that files on Commons must be free in the source country but that different countries identify different source countries for the same work. There is apparently a difference between the Berne Convention and the WIPO agreement in that the Berne Convention talks about 'countries' whereas the WIPO agreement talks about 'members', a difference which is important for one WIPO member, the w:Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.

There is a statement that some or all of the files using this template are not the kinds of works which are listed in the template. These files should be listed for deletion elsewhere. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a summary of that Japanese case? Google Translate doesn't help much at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Kept: per discussion. See also the argument by Stefan4 that some of the files using this template may also need to be nominated for deletion Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)