Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Polishparty
First of all, the II SAB/Wa 714/15 court judgement has *nothing* to do with copyrights. It only established that the information about how a (specific in this case) political party commenced a logo design, who is an author (designer) and how a contract was shaped (to transfer copyrights to a party) is a public information, and parties shouldn't withhold such information from whoever asks (as they spend public money, and we have a right to know how they were spent). This ruling doesn't state anything else. And, secondly, the Polish law is not based on precedenses, so one judgement changes nothing - even if it had been about copyrights. Third, there is no "public information" clause in the Polish copyright law; that is, whether the information is or isn't public doesn't influence its copyright status.
Therefore such template is wrong, and all tagged files should be deleted. Masur (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- But it literally says that political parties logos are in public domain.
Podkreślenia wymaga, iż funkcjonując w życiu publicznym (tzw. przestrzeni publicznej) partie polityczne wykorzystują znaki graficzne (loga), które ułatwiają odróżnianie danej partii od innych. Logo partii, jako element rozpoznawczy, jest wykorzystywane w materiałach wyborczych (plakatach, ulotkach), eksponowane na konferencjach prasowych, folderach reklamowych, itp. Znak graficzny partii politycznej niewątpliwie należy do domeny publicznej. Jest wykorzystywany powszechnie, posługiwanie się nim stanowi przejaw aktywności partii na zewnątrz, a środki finansowe wydatkowane na jego pozyskanie nie są tylko sprawą wewnętrzną partii politycznej.
- Yes, but (1) in the Polish system of copyright, regulated by the Act on Copyright and Related Rights, the term public domain does not appear - it isn't a legal term. Therefore, the "public domain" in this ruling is a figurative speech rather than literal "no-copyright" expression; in the meaning that it (logos) are so widely and publicly accessible, known, recognizable. No judge would use a non-existant legal term. And if this judge had wanted to clearly stress the possible copyright statuts, then he would've made a clear reference to the Polish Act on Copyright and Related Rights; like he did regarding the Polish Act on Public Information Access that was considered in this ruling and was the basis of a whole case. (2) The case was on the access to information and not on establishing whether logos are or are not subjects to copyrights. The judge couldn't in his ruling touch matters that weren't brought in (copyrights). (3) the Polish law is not based on precedenses, so one judgement changes nothing, but here the ruling is not even about copyrights at all. I think you did treated one figurative sentence, from one ruling, too literally, but the legal world isn't that simple (and I sometime wish it was). Masur (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. The page to describe copyright policy of Poland is COM:Poland. On that page, this template is not listed, nor is there some statement about logos of political parties. Whether the specific ruling of the Warshaw court, per https://sip.lex.pl/orzeczenia-i-pisma-urzedowe/orzeczenia-sadow/ii-sab-wa-714-15-wyrok-wojewodzkiego-sadu-522124399 , can be introduced on COM:Poland should be based on a thorough discussion between specialists and interested Commons contributors. If this results in inclusion of this reason to keep images, the template can be undeleted. Currently it has to be deleted, although it is used on several file pages. Note: I also deleted Template:PD-Polishparty/doc and Template:PD-Polishparty/en. --Ellywa (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)