Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Soviet
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please stop voting - organize professional legal advice. Thank you. | |
Nobody is happy deleting files just because he/she feels so. Anyhow that particular topic has been discussed quite some time before and the points that were brought up clearly indicate that PD-sovjet as we have it now is highly questionable and thatfor not acceptable at Commons. Obviously there is need for a definite legal expertise by the Foundation in order to enlighten that matter. Several people have asked for legal help but up to now the Foundation didn't do much into that direction. Eugene Zelenko once more asked for legal help at the foundation-l, see [1] and thread below [2] so we now have the following procedure:
|
In order to get this page working again, I added some subheadings - please use the last one for your comments. --Bahnmoeller 16:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
30th August
[edit]Ridiculous. All sowjet stuff enjoys 70 pma. The pictures retroactively gained this protection when russian law came into effect. Simply delete it and any pictures associated. May this template be roasted in hell. --Rtc 06:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Raymond Disc. 07:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Could you provide an explanation for you vote? Cmapm 20:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete – PD-sovjet has been discussed lots of times before, and I am surprised that this template is still around. Kjetil_r 14:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- The fact of discussion is enough to conclude, that usage of the template is wrong, isn't it? Interesting logic... Cmapm 20:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nobody is saying that discussion alone is enough to conclude. If you read the discussion on en.wp, you will see all the strong arguments for 70 pma. You can start by reading this email. --Kjetil_r 03:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No speedy actions, please. Is there final decision in lengthy discussion? At least this decision should be synchronized with EN:WP. Please don't delete images blindly. May be some of them are already {{PD-old}}. Did somebody tried to investigate copyrights status of Soviet Union/Russia post stamps? I think will be good idea to move images on EN:WP as fair use. At least images could be returned here when their copyrights will expire. --EugeneZelenko 14:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm agree with Rtc and others, but I think we shouldn't delete these images right now. IMO it's expected to declare the PD-Soviet tag as deprecated and prevent new uploads using it. But while our servers are placed in the USA, we have no urgent necessity to take so drastic measures as total deletion. --Panther 16:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- The tag has been deprecated for a long time as "This template is disputed". Time has come now to delete the tag and the pictures. Also do not upload as fair use. Fair use is entriely over-used. We are trying to produce free content, not to twist the law. --Rtc 03:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete [3] --Steschke 19:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Could you provide reasons of your vote, please? Cmapm 20:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- delete --Historiograf 20:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Could you provide reasons of your vote, please? Cmapm 20:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete es wird höchste Zeit --Marcela 20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
31st August
[edit]- I agree with Panther, Delete the template, and prevent new uploads, but keep the images for now as this would be an total disaster, maybe get an expert copyright lawyer for the images. Jaranda wat's sup 03:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is none needed. They are clearly a copyright violations. It's a copyright violation by common sense and Lupo has given a clear refutation of the ridiculous claims. They have been maked long ago as disputed. Delete the images NOW. It is not an excuse that there would be "an total disaster" (which I do not think). My deletion request is for template AND pictures. --Rtc 03:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- The fact of discussion is enough to decide, that the template is wrong, isn't it? Then I can initiate a discussion on any Wiki article, e.g. the Main Page, hold it enough time, and then, under similar argument, nominate it for deletion. Isn't it absurd? Cmapm 20:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm agree, they are copyright violations. But they are tagged, and we can delete them at any moment. I don't understand why we should realize it right now, at the time when we have no real legal problems with them. Let organize a project for reviewing these images and moving confirmed violations to local projects as fair use. We shouldn't delete still used images now, otherwise too many articles will be corrupt. --Panther 06:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is none needed. They are clearly a copyright violations. It's a copyright violation by common sense and Lupo has given a clear refutation of the ridiculous claims. They have been maked long ago as disputed. Delete the images NOW. It is not an excuse that there would be "an total disaster" (which I do not think). My deletion request is for template AND pictures. --Rtc 03:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Jaranda and Panther (or provide firm rationale for the template) but do not remove the images en bloc lightly. Comment Take a look at en:Template talk:PD-USSR as well, and at least synchronize both motions. Wojsyl 06:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Just for the record: I have nothing to do with this deletion request, and wasn't aware of it being made. I just learned about it from a notice at en:Template talk:PD-USSR. My arguments are on Template talk:PD-Soviet (and over at en:). Note, however, that I do oppose wholesale image deletion. The tag should be marked as wrong, future uploads using it should become speedy deletion candidates, and existing images need to be re-assessed. (Samulili has proposed exactly that, too.) It's a lot of work, though. Then the template can either be deleted, or maybe even left hanging around (clearly saying that the claim is wrong) to prevent re-creation. I had explained all that long ago at en:Template talk:PD-USSR#How to correct the tag. Ideally, this action would be coordinated with en:, otherwise we just run the risk that images are migrated back and forth. The claim is just as wrong on en: as it is here, so migrating images to en: using PD-USSR there would be a capital mistake. Some such images may be useable as "fair use" on en:, though. Lupo 07:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- As an aside, see [4] and [5]... I'll now try to lean back and just watch the show. Hopefully people opining here do continue to actually consider the arguments. Lupo 07:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This is one of the most bogus templates we have. As i understand the discussion on the Pavel Korin pictures earlier, nobody disagrees that this template violates not just Commons policies but also law. The only arguments for keeping and using it are like "Nobody will sue us" etc. That this has been tolerated until now is a huge exception and imho a massive erroneous trend causing only precedence for implementing fair-use-like licenses to commons which cannot be accepted. I agree with the proposals formerly made - delete the template or deprecate it and speedy delete new pictures at the one hand and reasses the old pictures on the other hand. There actually might be some stuff which is free for other reasons. Finally i think the sooner we get rid of this template the less work will we have in the aftermath.--Wiggum 08:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I'd recommend per case deletion with care, replacing the tag with newer one. Many of those pictures are copyvio, but many are really in public domain. Nominator's "70 pma" assumption is plain wrong. Every such an image should be checked and processed manually. There's no real need to hurry. I would paricipate in separation the husk from the grain. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 11:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC). 02:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep My arguments are in en:Template talk:PD-USSR. Russia has a unique status regarding to the Bern convention. Unlike all the other Berne countries, Russia did not provide the retroactive protection of the copyrighted works. I have a put a few citations on the en:Template talk:PD-USSR. Here is another one: Official commentary to the Law of the Authors Rights in Russian Federation Comment 6 to the Article 5: В соответствии с критерием гражданства Закон различает следующие три категории авторов произведений:
- российские граждане;
- граждане стран, имеющих с Россией международные договоры об авторском праве;
- граждане иных стран. На основе критерия гражданства граждане России охраняются всегда, а граждане стран, не имеющих с Россией международных договоров об авторских правах, не охраняются никогда. Что касается граждан стран, имеющих с Россией международные договоры по авторским правам, то их произведения:
- охраняются всегда - если авторы являются гражданами Австрии, Армении, Болгарии, Венгрии, Кубы, Малагасийской Республики, Польши, Словакии, Чехии или Швеции;
- охраняются, если они впервые были обнародованы после 26 мая 1973 года, а их автор - гражданин страны, входящей во Всемирную конвенцию об авторском праве, либо после 12 марта 1995 года, а их автор - гражданин страны, входящей в Бернскую конвенцию. Однако если страна, гражданином которой является автор произведения, вступила во Всемирную конвенцию после 27 мая 1973 года или в Бернскую конвенцию после 13 марта 1995 года, то в России охраняются только произведения граждан этих стран, которые впервые обнародованы после присоединения этой страны к соответствующей конвенции.
- According to the Article 5 there are three categories of the authors: Russian citizens, Citizens of the countries having with Russia International Treaties on the Author's rights, citizens of all the other countries. First are protected always, The third are never protected. Always protected also are citizens of Australia, Armenia, Bulgaria, Cuba, Malagasy Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Czech and Sweden. The rights of all the others are protected only if the works were published after the 26 May 1973 (for the members of the Universal Authors Convention) and from 27 May 1995 for the members of the Bern convention. All such conventions are reciprocal if Russia protects only 26 May 1973 then the others (except Poland, Cuba, etc.) protect Russian rights only after this date. In fact, according to Podshibikin/Leontiev it may mean that in the USA the Russian works are protected only since 12 March 1995. This interpretation seems to be supported by a preliminary decision of NYC court on Kurier vs. Itar-TASS [6] Preliminarily, the Court ruled that the request for a preliminary injunction concerned articles published after March 13, 1995 , the date that Russia acceded to the Bern Convention. See id. at 1125. The Court then ruled that the copied works were "Bern Convention work[s]," 17 U.S.C. § 101, and that the plaintiffs' rights were to be determined according to Russian copyright law. See Itar-Tass I , 886 F. Supp. at 1125-26. I agree that this interpretation might be not the only one possible, but I understand that there was no legal testing of the matter. Alex Bakharev 13:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, Alex. I think there's still a misunderstanding. This again is about the copyright of foreign works within Russia, not about the copyright of Soviet works outside of Russia or the CIS states. But it's interesting all the same. According to your own translation, "there are three categories of the authors: Russian citizens, Citizens of the countries having with Russia International Treaties on the Author's rights, citizens of all the other countries. First are protected always, The third are never protected." I.e. Russian's works always are protected in Russia. Can you source your statement on "reciprocable"? The Berne Convention doesn't say anything like that (and the rule of the shorter term is optional and not implemented in U.S. law). On Podshibikin/Leontiev, see en:Template_talk:PD-USSR#Podshibikhin.2FLeontiev source does not back the template. On the mentioned Itar-Tass case, see also en:Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. and at Wikisource. Lupo 14:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- What articles are referenced in the preliminary injunction mentioned in the case law example? The ones of the Kurier or the ones of the agencies? --Wiggum 20:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Kurier case is only tangentially relevant... The injunction was against Kurier and prohibited it copying the articles from the Russian plaintiffs. (Kurier basically had no own articles—they just cut'n'pasted articles from Russian newspapers, put the snippets together again, got it printed, and sold that as their own newspaper.) The injunction, the district court decision, and the decision of the circuit court (court of appeals) are available at Wikisource (in addition to the article at en:). Note that the case was pre-URAA, and dealt with recent articles (from the 1990s on), not pre-1973 ones. See also en:Template_talk:PD-USSR#Podshibikhin.2FLeontiev source does not back the template for what "pre-URAA" means and for an example of what U.S. courts do since the URAA was passed. Lupo 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes i already read it. When this preliminary injunction refers to the Kurier articles this would be fine with berne convention. After Russia signed, their works were treated under the convention. Basically this is only one point among others where i cannot find any hint that there should be a exception regarding the former SU. As far as i understood we base our evalution of PD status on the law of the country of origin (i.e. copyright ownership / PD status of german works is evaluated with german law and so on). So we would only regard Soviet works as PD when they were PD in the UdSSR or are PD in one of it's successor countries (Which country's law should apply is another question, i don't know if russia generally is the legal successor of the soviet union). However, what the license states is imho complete crap - the pictures are not in the Public Domain due to missing international conventions. Russia and the other GUS countries signed the berne convention, that matters. Therefore their works are protected in other countries like the respective national works. As i said, i don't see any hint for an exception.--Wiggum 22:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Russian's work are protected in Russia": this is false translation: the correct is "Russian citizen's work is protected in Russia" In Soviet Union for the Soviet law there were "Soviet citizens", not "Russian citizens". Mikkalai 21:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Kurier case is only tangentially relevant... The injunction was against Kurier and prohibited it copying the articles from the Russian plaintiffs. (Kurier basically had no own articles—they just cut'n'pasted articles from Russian newspapers, put the snippets together again, got it printed, and sold that as their own newspaper.) The injunction, the district court decision, and the decision of the circuit court (court of appeals) are available at Wikisource (in addition to the article at en:). Note that the case was pre-URAA, and dealt with recent articles (from the 1990s on), not pre-1973 ones. See also en:Template_talk:PD-USSR#Podshibikhin.2FLeontiev source does not back the template for what "pre-URAA" means and for an example of what U.S. courts do since the URAA was passed. Lupo 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. With such a level of "explanations" and naughty words in the nomination, this is bad faith. Not to mention no one proved that this template is wrong. -- Grafikm fr 18:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is the users who want to keep it who have to prove that the template is right, not vice versa. --Kjetil_r 20:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- The template was tagged "discussed". Was that discussion just a waste of time? Is anybody aware of that discussion's results? Or that "discussed" tag was like an ultimatum - "if no results in N days, then we have enough reasons for the template to be deleted" ?Cmapm 20:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I did not upload too many images under this tag, and didn't look up for results of the discussion at the template's Talk Page so far. But at a first glance all, what is going on, is very strange and even looks like a cabal. Therefore, I can't keep myself quiet. Did somebody experienced serious copyright complaints from any Russian organizations? Was it 100% proved by somebody, that pre-1973 Soviet publications are not PD in respective countries (those, where they should be PD to be eligible for tagging as such in Wiki)? Please, answer if not to me, then at least to yourself such simple questions, if you want your conscience to be clear. Not just argument "there are too many such images, hence they all should be deleted". If one should want to limit uploading of PD-Soviet images until the discussion of the template is over, he/she had a very simple solution: to use a note like "If uploaded after DD-MM-YYYY, then will be speedy deleted", as it's done, e.g. for in this template. Instead, people are trying to stop uploads by deleting a huge amount of images (i.e. other people's work) "at once and forever". I can't refrain from asking: are you newbies, guys? Or you just hate the USSR and people, who work on related topics, to such an extent? Best regards. Cmapm 19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes we ALL hate the USSR so much that we will only allow 70 years pma pictures like this is the rule for most countries. Besides, would you steal somthing or kill someone if nobody complains? I can't believe that you're taking yourself serious.--Wiggum 20:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Once again, have you ore somebody else proved 100%, that in this case we have stealing, but we are to have multiple murder acts of others work in a while. By the way, I see no results of the discussion in this nomination, was a person nominating even aware of it? Was there any voting in that discussion, where people decided, that the template is wrong? Cmapm 20:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is the claimers duty to prove 100% by a positive court case that their claims heavily contradicting any common sense are correct. It is not on commons to disprove their claims. --Rtc 20:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Once again, have you ore somebody else proved 100%, that in this case we have stealing, but we are to have multiple murder acts of others work in a while. By the way, I see no results of the discussion in this nomination, was a person nominating even aware of it? Was there any voting in that discussion, where people decided, that the template is wrong? Cmapm 20:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes we ALL hate the USSR so much that we will only allow 70 years pma pictures like this is the rule for most countries. Besides, would you steal somthing or kill someone if nobody complains? I can't believe that you're taking yourself serious.--Wiggum 20:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ich halte es für eine Zumutung, dass hier derart unsachlich diskutiert wird. Die bösartige Unterstellung Cmapms, die Befürworter der Löschung hassten die UdSSR ist eine Unverschämtheit. Die Argumente für ein bestehende Urheberrecht wurden klar und nachvollziehbar von Lupo vorgetragen. Es ist vielmehr eine Missachtung der Rechte der Bürger der ehemaligen UdSSR, diesen keine Urheberrechte zusprechen zu wollen oder gar die Beweislast umzukehren. Meine humanistische Gesinnung verbietet es mir, diese zu Menschen zweiter Klasse zu degradieren. Wir haben auf commons nicht nur die Pflicht dieses Projekt zu schützen, sondern auch und vor allem die rechtlichen Belange der Urheber. --Steschke 21:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC) [Rough translation: Cmapm's suggestion that the pro-deletion voters hate the USSR is insulting. The arguments in favor of an existing copyright were made clear and comprehensibe by Lupo. It is disrespectful to the citizens of the USSR to refuse them authors' rights or to turn around the burden of proof. I cannot bring myself to consider these people second-class citizens. We at Commons not have the obligation to protect the project, but also and above to protect authors' rights.]
- Keep. This Soviet noncopyrightability situation exists for 30 years now. If there were contested cases, where is the precedent? Soviet Union exempted itself from the rules of the rest of the world. What's so unclear? Mikkalai 21:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wir sprechen hier über höchstpersönliche Rechte der Urheber und sollten daher auf Rufe nach Sippenhaft verzichten. Willst du die Rechteinhaber tatsächlich für Fehler ihres politischen Systems verantwortlich machen? --Steschke 21:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC) [Rough translation: We're talking about the personal rights of the authors and should avoid calling for guilt by asssociation. Do you really want to hold authors responsible for the mistakes of their political system?]
1st September
[edit]- Keep I read the discussion of the template on the talk page (legal arguments for/against). I vote keep because 1) the copyright situation for Soviet pre-1973 images is still too vague, Russian/Georgian/Ukrainian laws notwithstanding, and 2. there are numerous images and I oppose blind deletion of them--Riurik 03:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Unbeeindruckt von jeder Vernunft entscheidet es sich eben leichter. Lieber verletzen wir das Urheberrecht und schaden diesem Projekt, als auch nur ein mal nachzudenken. Danke für diese Stellungnahme, sie zeigt, wess Geistes Kind du bist. --Steschke 05:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC) [Rough translation: It's easier to decide when you don't use reason. Better to violate copyright and damage the project than to think.]
- [...] the copyright situation for Soviet pre-1973 images is still too vague [...] might be correct but to reason a keep vote out of this fact leads into absurditiy. May i stress the fact again, that we regularly delete unclear cases?--Wiggum 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Copyright is, of course, not made for voting. Even worse is this "deleting"-approach of a group of law-dabblers. Just have a look of many publications by Osprey Publishing Ltd, Jane's (or even the US-Government) were those images where unquestioned used commercially. International copyright allways base on comparison of the retention period, which is a fundamental principle. I wonder why all the "experts" did NOT mention this. -- Yelzin 06:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- LOL - Die US-Regierung ist nun wirklich kein Maßstaab für Recht und Gesetz. Ganz im Gegenteil. --Steschke 06:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC) ''Translation: LOL - The U.S. government is not a measure of what's right and legal. On the contrary.''
- I wonder if you really know under what circumstances those books use the pictures. Contrary to the commons project a book does not maintain an approach of perfectly free pictures. Since newspapers or books as well use a gray area of citation this is not a really comparable case. Besides it's a usual practice in publishing to use pictures and relicense them after a copyright holder complains. This would not be an acceptable policy for commons.--Wiggum 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per all of the above as well as many previous votes. If someone is so eager to delete this, have some common courtesy to resurrect the issue once a quarter rather than every week. It does not affect the results but saves much of the other's people time for more productive activity. --Irpen 06:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. Oh, and may I strike out the non-English entries of a grossly inconsiderate user? --Irpen 06:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, you may not. Commons is a multilingual project and writing in German and Russian is no more inconsiderate than writing in English. Angr 05:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. Oh, and may I strike out the non-English entries of a grossly inconsiderate user? --Irpen 06:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. --Zserghei 07:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. No hard argument for removing template. Template absolutely legal, see [7]:
. --Yakudza 07:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Статьи первых 10 томов (с «А» по «Италики»), издававшихся до 1973, — общественное достояние на территории США, но защищены Законом об авторском праве в России.
- Keep. As per sane arguments above. --TimBits 12:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sane? Erhm... Lupo has at least shown clear and fundamental weaknesses in these false claims, which in doubt gives them the burden of proof of a positive court case. And these pictures are clearly protected 70 pma in russia. Commons would have to make an ip block towards whole russia if it wants to stay legal (under the assumption that the claims are correct, which they are not). --Rtc 12:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Alex and others have already proven the case. Nothing else to add. If someone has a chronic problem of bringing this up once in a while, please as said above, have some courtesy, at least do it less frequently (quartely would be goood) and save others time. --TimBits 13:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sane? Erhm... Lupo has at least shown clear and fundamental weaknesses in these false claims, which in doubt gives them the burden of proof of a positive court case. And these pictures are clearly protected 70 pma in russia. Commons would have to make an ip block towards whole russia if it wants to stay legal (under the assumption that the claims are correct, which they are not). --Rtc 12:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Laws never become valid retroactively. Until someone can prove with a court decision that pictures with this tag are copyrighted, the tag is valid and the pictures are free to use. Errabee 13:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- You misunderstand what "retroactive" means. It means that you cannot be sued for something after a law which didn't exist at the time you did your something. Nobody will sue you for usage of works which are protected today when this usage occured before respective laws (i.e. due to accedence to berne convention) came into effect. Only the use today isn't allowed.--Wiggum 14:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Or perhaps you misunderstand. It could also mean that all works created now are protected for 70 years, but all works created earlier were not. Either way, I still have to see a court decision that says images from the SU before 1973 are copyrighted. Errabee 15:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, what you mean with "Laws never become valid retroactively" is that there is no ex post facto law, which is correct. The retroactive mechanism of copyright law isn't ex post facto since the law doesn't come into effect into the past. It just covers issues of the past which is a separated issue. The berne convention grants protection of at least 50 years pma and it grants also that the signatory countries treat foreign works as their own. So there is just not even the smallest hint that this is not the same for soviet works. No one of the keep voters has provided similar elementary arguments. It is not my duty to find court decisions that strenghen my point of view. I don't upload images of today and then say "show me a court decision that prohibits pictures of today", this is ridiculous. Instead, when you want to maintain a case which is allegedly completely different from international agreements it's your turn to underline those opinions with facts.--Wiggum 21:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Or perhaps you misunderstand. It could also mean that all works created now are protected for 70 years, but all works created earlier were not. Either way, I still have to see a court decision that says images from the SU before 1973 are copyrighted. Errabee 15:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- You misunderstand what "retroactive" means. It means that you cannot be sued for something after a law which didn't exist at the time you did your something. Nobody will sue you for usage of works which are protected today when this usage occured before respective laws (i.e. due to accedence to berne convention) came into effect. Only the use today isn't allowed.--Wiggum 14:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I totally agree with Mikkalai comments.Ldingley 14:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep see above --LimoWreck 15:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if there is something wrong with the template's wording, then fix the thing. If there are photos that are under this license's old wording that do not fit the new wording, then we shall deal with those accordingly. I will not be the first to admit that this is a pretty hard issue, since not only we are trying to deal with a copyright situation from a country that legally does not exist anymore, but has been fragmented into other nation-states. I would just ask that for now, just no more uploads under this category until we will find exactly what is going on. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- FWIW, the UNESCO stated that the Soviet copyright laws can be found in the text “Fundamentals of the Civil Legislation of the USSR and Union Republics.” I would like to see the text from 1991, which was the last such text that was pased before the USSR broke appart. By this time, some of the treaties the USSR signed would have come into play so I just want to see what this says. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This template is a ticking time bomb. --Voyager 18:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - see user Voyager above. -- Tsor 18:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. See Alex' comments. I fully agree with him. Miastko 19:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Those pictures are not allowed on dewp. And commons should have the least common denominator of all projects. --DaB. 19:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete sowjet stuff enjoys 70 pma. This template is a ticking time bomb. --Sonaz 19:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete [8], Template talk:PD-Soviet#This template is very wrong -Samulili 19:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for obvious and sufficiently stated reasons. The topic is not really debatable here, as Wikimedia is not entitled to change the law. Schizoschaf 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
2nd September
[edit]- Delete All said above, no serious counterpoints. Denisoliver 19:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete of course, all the reasons were already mentioned on Template talk:PD-Soviet long ago --Ahellwig 22:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Alex & mikka. Khoikhoi 22:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Keep per Zscout370 vote comment. Gnomz007 01:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Hardly a "ticking time bomb". And the State that would have had the true final say has exploded already. Not an issue. Dr. Dan 02:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's Nonsense. The final say have judges in each country of the world. Those who see their rights violated by this can sue in any country (because commons is browseable from and directed at any country explictly). They can also sue in several countries at once, or one after another, until success. It is frightening to see users vote for the death of the project. Don't you see that if you keep voting for deliberate violation of the basic policies here (that copyright must be respected, not only on a "let's wait until they sue" basis), wikimedia foundation will sooner or later shut down commons? Wikiquote had a hard time to get its act together; if commons does not succeed in freeing itself from its morbid ulcers like this, they will be its death in end. --Rtc 02:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, but I see a case of copyright paranoia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's Nonsense. The final say have judges in each country of the world. Those who see their rights violated by this can sue in any country (because commons is browseable from and directed at any country explictly). They can also sue in several countries at once, or one after another, until success. It is frightening to see users vote for the death of the project. Don't you see that if you keep voting for deliberate violation of the basic policies here (that copyright must be respected, not only on a "let's wait until they sue" basis), wikimedia foundation will sooner or later shut down commons? Wikiquote had a hard time to get its act together; if commons does not succeed in freeing itself from its morbid ulcers like this, they will be its death in end. --Rtc 02:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I think earlier discussions (like Template_talk:PD-Soviet or en:Template talk:PD-USSR) and this site for example show clearly, that the assumption of all soviet pictures published before 1973 being PD is at least very doubtful. The arguments brought forward by the opposing side didn't convince me. Sure, it would be a big loss for the various Wikipedia projects and their articles on historic topics to delete all these pictures, and I can see that many of the above voters feel the same way and want to keep them. But on the other hand you have to keep in mind that Wikimedia Commons wants to be a media database of completely free files, that users can use safely without having to fear law suits when using this pictures in commercial publications (books, magazines, Wikipedia-DVDs etc..). So the question is: is it okay to keep copyvios on commons, to just close our eyes and assume/hope/pretend that nobody will sue us, the uploaders or - more likely - the people who use our pictures in good faith? I think that in this case we have to swallow the bitter pill. Re-assess the exisiting pictures - as many of them (as far as I can see) could be tagged PD-old - and change the template text. --88.134.45.6 03:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the reasons are known, too risky -- Funji 05:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I agree to the opinions of Rtc, Lupo, and Steschke. Although we should keep the ones that are already PD-old. --Flominator 06:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep see Mikkalai -- Sozi 08:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete All said above.--Syrcro 08:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- delete - the template and every single image that uses it: We are in dire need of establishing a fact based golden rule. I suggest that every image to be used on commons must be legal in the US and the country of origin. We should not care for saudi-arabian or japanese law, if the image is not connected with those countries. In the case of soviet images we all know by now, that the copyright of russian citizens (and that of GIS member states) is always protected in russia for 70 y pma. So this is our baseline: russian/GIS/soviet images are protected 70y pma. case closed, this templete is due to deletion along with all the images. --h-stt !? 09:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete incl all pictures (besides the pd-old ones) -- FelixReimann 09:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Alex Bakharev. MaxSem 12:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete All said above. --Leipnizkeks 13:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fully agreeing with Lupo and h-stt. Just an example: Famous Russian composer Dmitri Shostakovich died in 1975. Regarding his works being published before 1973 i have had contact with director of legal & buiseness affairs of "Sikorski Musikverlage", the official publisher of Shostakovich works. They clearly state that all of his works remain copyrighted 70 years pma. Furthermore, if you search the database of GEMA, you will find all of his works listed under his name, which would not be the case if they were not copyrighted. --Taxman(de) 15:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Alex Bakharev and Mikka .dima 15:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC) ('don't worry it's me...)
- Keep per Irpen and don't waste other people's time with useless deletion votes. Sashazlv, 2 September 2006.
- Delete or have fun with a legal action Liesel 16:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete full ack to editors statements aboce --Emha 17:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as soon as possible --Aragorn05 17:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Irpen and others. Soviet (Russian...) law is DIFFERENT from US law, but apparently some people think that if something is illegal in US it is illegal worldwide. Nope. In this case the Russian law applies, not US, therefore if it legal in Russia (where pictures were published, etc.), it is legal in US. Perhaps we should add a 'globalize' template to this VfD. PS. lex retro non agit.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Gosh, how often must this be repeated - this is no case of "lex retro non agit", the laws don't criminalize usage of pictures in the past. But they prevent usage of them today. According to the link Samulili mentioned above, the SU had a 15 years pma rule since 1928 which was later extended to 25 years and in the 90ies to 50 and 70 years. Disregarding this fact, we store the Reichstag-picture of Yevgeni Khaldei - who died in 1997 - and claim it PD. I didn't saw an appropriate reason for this in any of those debates.--Wiggum 19:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ...Sicherlich Post 18:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I strongly believe what Lupo says about it --Schlendrian 18:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Ìt has been thoroughly shown that russian works fall under the 70 pma rule. --Phrood 20:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it's getting ridiculous. Elk Salmon 21:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete see user Voyager above. Julius1990 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Berlin-Jurist 22:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Just imagine, a russian law would turn child pornography legal and PD (in reality, the russians would not do this). Would this child pornography be legal here, because "it's legal in russia and russian law applies"? Of course not.
- Delete Per Lupo. Haukurth 23:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete everything is said... --gunny Talk! 23:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per Wiggum - Sven-steffen arndt 23:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete see Wiggum, Lupo, Rtc, Historiograf and all the others. --BLueFiSH ✉ 01:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The template is keeping up a wrong claim: This claim would mean, that all works of - for example - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, written before 1973 are PD - that means can be reproduced by anybody at any time. That´s nonsense... --Ewald Trojansky 05:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment if the template is deleted, I still would like to caution everyone that we should try and go through each media file separately, unless there is a clear reason to delete. There are some items that are in here that are public domain for other reasons, such as being a state symbolic or because of other reasons. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. We should not keep exceptions whith which we cannont be sure we are not violating third rights. --Wikipeder 06:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Let's see a professional assessment of the situation first. Meanwhile, there is altogether too much of a "seems" and "believes" here and in Talk page mentioned. 82.209.218.9 06:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous vote. Invalid.this is not about counting votes, but about arguments Schizoschaf 09:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC) That was my write-in (seems I didn't notice my session expired). Yury Tarasievich 07:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)- You ar looking on the problem from the wrong perspective. We have to be absolutely sure, content is free an then transfer it to commons. So there is indeed way to much seems and believes here. Just your conclusion is wrong. Schizoschaf 09:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- And there is altogether too much of "your opinion is wrong" in this discussion, by the way. So it all gets pretty much philosophical, but, luckily, the notion of seeking the professional advice first is getting some attention, at last. Yury Tarasievich 07:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete see Wiggum, Lupo, Rtc, Historiograf and all the others. --Dodo 08:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete every picture and text which are not absolutely clear available under free license must be deleted, because they are general risks for the complete project --Mijobe 09:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as soon as possible --84.189.180.240 09:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - around ten Wikipedians who have my full trust are for deletion. That's enough for me. Kenwilliams 10:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete after someone deleted my "vote" - delete, everything is said, and you could be lucky if there are no legal consequences for wikimedia foundation --gunny Talk! 10:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree to Lupo's arguments and research. However, before deleting or moving the pictures I would definitely suggest/prefer the legal opinion of a foundation' legal advisor in order to fix the point. International copyright law is not a case for discussing and opinions of laypersons. --Elya 10:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This template is a ticking time bomb.--Bobo11 11:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Löschen; schließe mich den Argumenten von Lupo und Wiggum an. --Mogelzahn 11:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC) ''Rough translation: '''Delete''' per Lupo and Wiggum''
- Pass auf, hier werden deutschsprachige Kommentare vom Vandalen Irpen gelöscht : [9]. --Steschke 11:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC) [Rough translation: Watch out, German-language comments are being deleted by the vandal Irpen.]
- If you want your comments stay here, rewrite them in English and they will be all safe and happy. --Irpen 02:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC) [Grobe Übersetzung: Wenn Du willst, dass Deine Kommentare hier bleiben, schreib sie neu auf Englisch und sie werden alle sicher und glücklich sein.]
- Pass auf, hier werden deutschsprachige Kommentare vom Vandalen Irpen gelöscht : [9]. --Steschke 11:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC) [Rough translation: Watch out, German-language comments are being deleted by the vandal Irpen.]
- Delete after reading Lupo's analysis, keeping is negligent. Threedots 11:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I must remind everyone of the comment of Eugene Zelenko, on August 30th. There will be no speedy deletion of these images based on this debate. We will wait until the Foundations requests us to delete them, or until juridical precedents requires us to. don't worry. / Fred Chess 11:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree to Steschke. Fred's statement is irrational. This is a dedicated project. Dedicated to collect and distribute free content. If content ain't free its not supposed to be on commons. Who doesn't care wether or not content is free can use google.com/images. --Schizoschaf 12:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I'm very sure everything has been said, and to keep the iamges would be illegal. --Ixitixel 14:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - full ack Lupo --Reinhard 16:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- delete Lupos arguments are sufficient. Some people say this would be too fast, or claim "No speedy actions, please." - however the german Wikipedia was cleaned of these images some months ago and no one can say that this discussion would be new here on Commons. --Crux 19:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Redline is courtage 19:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- strong Keep. Проголосовал, к сожалению, это всего лишь очередная попытка уничтожить все упоминания о Союзе... Мне искренне жаль этих людей... With respect, Nejron 20:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but we need advice from a professional copyright lawyer (also in the case PD-Italy and PD-ItalyGov). It does not really help to follow hobby-lawyer opinions, either Pro or Contra. --Denniss 21:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
4th September
[edit]- Delete - The key goal of Wikipedia Commons is to produce a database of truly free images which anyone can use for any reason, without fear of being sued. Including photographs with such ambiguous copyright status as those covered by this template goes against this goal. Balcer 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- By Balcer's logic {{PD-Poland}} should go even sooner. Total nonsense to claim images all the way till '94 to be non-copyrightable in USA only because they are PD in Poland. USSR is non-existing state and the cutoff date is, at least not as non-sensial as PD-Poland's 1994. --Irpen 02:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Even you admit that the situation with PD-Poland is different (you claim it is worse). Since it is different, let's not discuss it here. If you believe PD-Poland needs to be deleted, consider starting its own separate deletion vote. Balcer 03:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- No Balcer, I won't play this trick. IMO, the unjustified m:copyright paranoia is disruptive and harmful. I won't attack Polish images like you attack the Russian and Ukrainian ones, because I want a better Wikipedia. I understand the safety concerns exist but if there are any threats, this is the least likely place to expect them. This has nothing to do with really problem images that should be handled instead of this ridiculous "debate" of people with little idea who all think of themselves as copyright lawyers while no one of the deletionists care to ask a single expert despite requested many times to do so. --Irpen 03:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Irpen, about 40 people voted against this template. Singling me out for personal criticism could be considered a personal attack. Balcer 04:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I "singled you out" because I was surprized by your vote. Of the other people who voted, I either don't know them, or I expected them to vote that way. And please no unsubstantiated PA accusations. Nothing above is a PA. This is really annoying to see people calling the words they simply don't like a PA just to get some leverage. --Irpen 04:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Balcer, Irpen please assume WP:AGF, no reasons to suspect bad faith and no reasons to suspect PA if there are none. The question is dear to many of us, but please do not take the discussion personally. Alex Bakharev 05:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- My point exactly. This is about consistensy and better Wikipedia which largely relies on images and those are safe unlike others. --Irpen 05:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Balcer, Irpen please assume WP:AGF, no reasons to suspect bad faith and no reasons to suspect PA if there are none. The question is dear to many of us, but please do not take the discussion personally. Alex Bakharev 05:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I "singled you out" because I was surprized by your vote. Of the other people who voted, I either don't know them, or I expected them to vote that way. And please no unsubstantiated PA accusations. Nothing above is a PA. This is really annoying to see people calling the words they simply don't like a PA just to get some leverage. --Irpen 04:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Irpen, about 40 people voted against this template. Singling me out for personal criticism could be considered a personal attack. Balcer 04:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- No Balcer, I won't play this trick. IMO, the unjustified m:copyright paranoia is disruptive and harmful. I won't attack Polish images like you attack the Russian and Ukrainian ones, because I want a better Wikipedia. I understand the safety concerns exist but if there are any threats, this is the least likely place to expect them. This has nothing to do with really problem images that should be handled instead of this ridiculous "debate" of people with little idea who all think of themselves as copyright lawyers while no one of the deletionists care to ask a single expert despite requested many times to do so. --Irpen 03:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Even you admit that the situation with PD-Poland is different (you claim it is worse). Since it is different, let's not discuss it here. If you believe PD-Poland needs to be deleted, consider starting its own separate deletion vote. Balcer 03:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- By Balcer's logic {{PD-Poland}} should go even sooner. Total nonsense to claim images all the way till '94 to be non-copyrightable in USA only because they are PD in Poland. USSR is non-existing state and the cutoff date is, at least not as non-sensial as PD-Poland's 1994. --Irpen 02:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Commons should include only images whose free status is beyond question. Angr 05:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Valodzka 06:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Why don't you delete Template:PD-Poland first? --Ghirlandajo 06:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- No one's nominated it yet. One thing at a time. Angr 07:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Catrin 12:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Study law. Lupo's analysis is completely wrong! VanHelsing.16 13:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Could you please help us stupid non lawyers by telling us why? --Flominator 16:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- Prilutsky 14:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- strong Keep. There is no reason for deletion; discussion on this question is incomplete; proposers simply don't know law. Edward Chernenko 14:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- strong Delete - There is no legal reason to keep. In this case all is said I think -- Necrophorus 15:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Isn't it amazing that many pro voters hardly havy any edits on commons? See Special:Contributions/Prilutsky, Special:Contributions/Valodzka, Special:Contributions/Nejron, Special:Contributions/Elk Salmon, and Special:Contributions/Riurik for example. --Nichtbesserwisser 16:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- And what? Do you mean people not contributing to commons can't decide any licensing problems? That is a strange point of view. VanHelsing.16 16:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I trust Lupo's analysis and Steschke's, Wiggum's, Rtc's, Historiograf's etc. judgement. --Rosenzweig 16:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- delete - Citizens of the former Soviet Union do enjoy the 70 years protection like any other people. I do understand that there are a lot of immigrants in the US or other countries, who would benefit as well. --Bahnmoeller 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Decission: Let me proceed something: Nobody is happy deleting files just because he/she feels so. Anyhow that particular topic has been discussed quite some time before and the points that were brought up clearly indicate that PD-sovjet as we have it now is highly questionable and thatfor not acceptable at Commons. Obviously there is need for a definite legal expertise by the Foundation in order to enlighten that matter. Several people have asked for legal help but up to now the Foundation didn't do much into that direction. Eugene Zelenko once more asked for legal help at the foundation-l, see [10] and thread below [11] so we now have the following procedure:
- We leave that thread open until 20. September (exactly three weeks after the thread started). This should be enough time for everybody to write down his points and also giving local communities chances to be prepared on the matter.
- If there is no fundamental change in the meantime (saying the Foundation happily published an expertise that strongly backs PD-sovjet) we abandon PD-sovjet entirely and remove all PD-sovjet images in Commons. I don't say "delete" (although we all call it that way) as it is no longer a real deletion. Files can be restored like articles. So none of the valuable images will be irrevocable deleted.
- If at some point in future it may happens that PD-sovjet is indeed public domain (for example public declaration of russian officials on pre-1973 russian copyright, official legal expertise by the Foundation...) we can restore that files.
This procedure should be fair towards anyone and meeting our strict license requirements at the same time. Arnomane 20:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- This debate is stucked. I understand that there is much sceptizism because no one of us (?) is an educated lawyer. I highly appreciate Eugenes request for foundation support. It would be very helpful if we could establish some testable guidelines for all media types. You may notice in the Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Charlie Patton & Bertha Lee - Mind Reader Blues.ogg case that there is also considerable confusion about music copyright. I don't expect anything other than a 70-years-pma-recommondation for pictures in general but maybe there are other possibilities we didn't consider yet. Before 20 September we should review the tagged articles, maybe there are some PD-old or others we can keep.--Wiggum 21:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please let us keep things separate (this thread is long enough ;). The general media license policy gets debated at Commons talk:Licensing and some other more general places. So yes this is not image specific. Images are just our main media files and we often implicitly include all other media files as well if we say "image". On wrongly tagged files: We naturally take care of it. Arnomane 23:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- This debate is stucked. I understand that there is much sceptizism because no one of us (?) is an educated lawyer. I highly appreciate Eugenes request for foundation support. It would be very helpful if we could establish some testable guidelines for all media types. You may notice in the Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Charlie Patton & Bertha Lee - Mind Reader Blues.ogg case that there is also considerable confusion about music copyright. I don't expect anything other than a 70-years-pma-recommondation for pictures in general but maybe there are other possibilities we didn't consider yet. Before 20 September we should review the tagged articles, maybe there are some PD-old or others we can keep.--Wiggum 21:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
5th September
[edit]- Keep PD-Soviet images have been used by Wikipedia since the begginnig, for five years by now. So far, there was no one leagal threat. Also, these images are used by many other sites too. If there were copyright owners, they would already have taken actions. Kneiphof 05:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kneiphof and my comments above. --Panther 08:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I am agree with comments for Keep --Butko 08:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Please, do not harm Russian Wikipedia. Saproj 09:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Until a waterproof solution has been found, these pictures must be deleted in the usual time that {{subst:nsd}} gives them. The template itself is obviously useless. If a waterproof solution has been found, some pictures could be restored later, but that's a case-by-case scenario anyhow. For the general set of pictures under this "licence" we can only decide on being safe and deleting first and thus not being sorry later. --Melanom 09:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- delete --Philipendula 09:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kneiphof --jno 09:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, intersing: absolute majoraty of delete-voters are from German Wikipeida. Just a coincidence?!! Kneiphof 09:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- no, we only take it seriously - Sven-steffen arndt 09:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment only: of course it's no coincidence that many people expressing their opinions here are active primarily on either Russian subjects at the en: Wikipedia, at the Russian Wikipedia, or at the German Wikipedia. The case is discussed in all these places, including ru:Обсуждение шаблона:SovietPU, de:WP:UF#PD-Soviet_auf_Commons_wird_zum_Risiko_für_das_Projekt, and maybe elsewhere. Logically that attracts people. Unfortunately the discussions are not always calm. BTW, the Russian Wikipedia uses lots of images under that template (called SovietPU there), despite the template explicitly stating that such works might be copyrighted in Russia. Lupo 10:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Since WP servers are in the US, Russian law might not matter at all, so it is quite logical. -- Grafikm fr 12:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Does that mean German law doesn't matter at all either? Then we should delete all images with {{Logo-Germany}} on them, since they're public domain in Germany but not in the U.S. Angr 12:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- It might be so, yes. But you will notice that, contrary to some people, I merely emit a hypothesis and that I don't start posting announces calling for deletion of these media. This matter, as the pre-1973 thing, need special investigation by competent people. -- Grafikm fr 12:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Does that mean German law doesn't matter at all either? Then we should delete all images with {{Logo-Germany}} on them, since they're public domain in Germany but not in the U.S. Angr 12:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Since WP servers are in the US, Russian law might not matter at all, so it is quite logical. -- Grafikm fr 12:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, it's just that some people want some images from WWII disappear, it's as simple as that. -- Grafikm fr 12:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to be wrong, but there was a wave of revisionizm a month ago. Just about "germans didn't start WWII", etc. Maybe, it's just a sequence of events. Maybe. Can anybody announce this discussion in de.wiki? I believe, most germans are not brain-frozen and this affect their history as well. --jno 12:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- This wave of anti-Soviet revisionism is nothing new, and is strong in a lot of countries. -- Grafikm fr 12:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- To one of the questions above, yes, it does mean that neither German nor Russial law matters. The copyright law (unlike the laws of war) is not international. Wikimedia projects, being based on US servers are only affected by the US copyright laws. Copyright laws are affected by conventions, that is a country joining the convention must ammend its laws to comply with it. But this is all about the US law and US international obligations. Neither German not Russian laws affect anything. --Irpen 15:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Per http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027373.html, however, Jimbo disagrees. Our image use policies need to comply not only with U.S. law but also with other countries' laws, so that our content is reusable in those countries too. German law and Russian law and Iranian law are all relevant here. Angr 15:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- To one of the questions above, yes, it does mean that neither German nor Russial law matters. The copyright law (unlike the laws of war) is not international. Wikimedia projects, being based on US servers are only affected by the US copyright laws. Copyright laws are affected by conventions, that is a country joining the convention must ammend its laws to comply with it. But this is all about the US law and US international obligations. Neither German not Russian laws affect anything. --Irpen 15:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- This wave of anti-Soviet revisionism is nothing new, and is strong in a lot of countries. -- Grafikm fr 12:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to be wrong, but there was a wave of revisionizm a month ago. Just about "germans didn't start WWII", etc. Maybe, it's just a sequence of events. Maybe. Can anybody announce this discussion in de.wiki? I believe, most germans are not brain-frozen and this affect their history as well. --jno 12:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment only: of course it's no coincidence that many people expressing their opinions here are active primarily on either Russian subjects at the en: Wikipedia, at the Russian Wikipedia, or at the German Wikipedia. The case is discussed in all these places, including ru:Обсуждение шаблона:SovietPU, de:WP:UF#PD-Soviet_auf_Commons_wird_zum_Risiko_für_das_Projekt, and maybe elsewhere. Logically that attracts people. Unfortunately the discussions are not always calm. BTW, the Russian Wikipedia uses lots of images under that template (called SovietPU there), despite the template explicitly stating that such works might be copyrighted in Russia. Lupo 10:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- So, if not only US law, but also Iranian, or Zimbabvian or Bolivian law matters, we should deleate all creative commons images. Really. Do you actualy realise, that CC are only in recognized in 32 countries? In all other countries they have no legal power at all, thay are just illegal! Do you understands that CC licences are just time bomb under Wikipedia?!! Delete tham all, imediately!
- P.S. I'm wondering if GFDL is recognized by Iranian copyrigt law... Kneiphof 22:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- That doesn't matter at all. The template alleges something (certain images being in the public domain), which, as others have pointed out, is wrong. The GFDL doesn't do this. --Ahellwig 14:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kneiphof --Kaganer 10:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kneiphof --Mor 11:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kneiphof -- Serebr 11:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for a number of reasons, the most important being: (1) there were no legal threats so far and no proof that they will arise any time soon; (2) the discussion has been so huge that no sane newcomer can read it, but it is stuck nevertheless: people are shouting the same arguments over and over; (3) I am in no way proficient with legal stuff, and so are most of the wikipedians - let's keep doing things we are familiar with; (4) there are lots of legacy images marked with that template, and even if it is decided to remove the template, some considerable time period should be left for relabeling. --spider 12:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep--Jaro.p 12:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Kneiphof. --Obersachse 13:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep--Ctac 14:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kneiphof -- Shkoorah 14:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kneiphof Vlad2000Plus 18:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I compleatly agre with Kneiphof. Stassats 19:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - everyything did say. Manecke 19:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is getting ridiculous. Halibutt 20:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're damn right, some people above confuse this copyright problem even with a "wave of anti-Soviet revisionism", ridiculous... --Ahellwig 14:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kneiphof and others. --Jaroslavleff 20:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per every single opinion. Hands off our images!--Kuban kazak 15:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kneiphof Kaliy 18:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
attempt to stop voting, please do not vote below this heading
[edit]May I ask based on what and on whose authority the message below as well as the message on the very top was added? TIA --Irpen 15:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Please stop voting. We never count votes in Commons deletion requests and we all have expressed our opinions. So everything that counts in that matter is reliable, professional, legal advice. So please help us to organize that. Please see our roadmap above, which clearly indicates what is necessary in order to keep these images. There is still quite some time left that could be spend better than in just voting. Arnomane 14:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- In the absence of a legal expertise, one cannot delete this template and these images. Meanwhile, what you're trying to do is to disrupt Wikipedia in absence of any legal evidence nor legal threats.
- So, please don't try to impress everyone with a "roadmap" that has no basis whatsoever, except original research of a few people, with none of them being a copyright expert. -- Grafikm fr 14:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is the duty of the uploader to proof legality of his own uploads not the duty of an admin. Though we have done a fair amount of own research. This roadmap is an agreement of many Commons admins (so nobody wants to impress anyone with that) in order to bring the debate back on the right track in our wiki that we daily take care of in contrast to many others that just vote here but don't help us organizing a legal expertise by the Foundation. Arnomane 14:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, in the absence of legal expertise we cannot keep this template and the images associated with it. There is very good reason to doubt the accuracy of the template, and unless its validity can be proved, it and all images its used on must be deleted. Regardless of how many people vote "keep" here. Angr 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- And there are very good reasons to not doubt the accuracy of the template, so it cannot be deleted because some admin wants to delete it. -- Grafikm fr 15:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- As you can tell from the above discussion, it's not just "some admin" who wants to delete it. And even one good reason to doubt the template's accuracy trumps all reasons to believe its accuracy. Wikimedia's integrity cannot and must not be jeopardized if there is any doubt at all. Angr 15:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- And there are very good reasons to not doubt the accuracy of the template, so it cannot be deleted because some admin wants to delete it. -- Grafikm fr 15:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, in the absence of legal expertise we cannot keep this template and the images associated with it. There is very good reason to doubt the accuracy of the template, and unless its validity can be proved, it and all images its used on must be deleted. Regardless of how many people vote "keep" here. Angr 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is the duty of the uploader to proof legality of his own uploads not the duty of an admin. Though we have done a fair amount of own research. This roadmap is an agreement of many Commons admins (so nobody wants to impress anyone with that) in order to bring the debate back on the right track in our wiki that we daily take care of in contrast to many others that just vote here but don't help us organizing a legal expertise by the Foundation. Arnomane 14:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
May I ask who and based on what auhtority whoever added this framed message above did so? Can anyone post any messages here telling others to start and/or stop voting at any time or at any specific time? --Irpen 15:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Commons admins decided after a lenghty consideration on IRC. So that weren't random people. Arnomane 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I want to reiterate the following: The issue is not whether or not we may be sued over these images, but whether or not these images violate Commons policy. Inasmuch as the freeness of these image is questionable, they do violate our policy. This template should no longer be used, any new image uploaded under it should be speedy deleted, and any image previously uploaded under it should be investigated and deleted or relicenced, whatever is necessary. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't delete ! The images shoud be checked one by one, if there is annother, correct licence, like Template:PD-Russia or Template:PD-RU-exempt possible ! Augiasstallputzer 13:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I moved your comment to the relevent discussion. This is very similar to what I proposed. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 14:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- In fact some trusted people are doing this right now (RalfR and Dab for example). So don't panic. We Commons admins know what we do. ;-) Arnomane 18:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Lupo has now made some interesting comments at en:Template_talk:PD-USSR#A_concrete_court_case_in_the_U.S.. --Kjetil_r 04:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Annotation
[edit]Dealing with copyrights is always a matter of certain risk. But 5 years without a lawsuit, providing several thousand former Soviet pictures, using them commercially and even selling them on DVD, is a strong argument being not too wrong. The Foundation, however, should decide if it is willing to take the risk furthermore. It is not just this PD-Soviet. Also questionable are PD-US and probably many many more. There is always a risk even because pictures were tagged in a misleading way. If the the Foundation is willing to take the risk we should mark the template (and probably many many more) in this special way.
The Commons are now on a point where further decisions should be done. It probably became just adult with some crisis. Probably this is because some users became adult, too. Or begin to fade away.
The commons are a big success. Today we collected more than 800000 images. But we should be so faithful to admit that the commons today is miles away from being a place of freely usable images. Many pictures have usage restrictions, depending on the country of origin or their content. This, of course, is against the holy commons policy. Would it be the best idea to set up another "commons" full of "usable" but somehow restricted images?
Sorry for my weak english, best regards -- Stahlkocher 16:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Decision
[edit]PD-Soviet will be deleted as PD-Soviet is imcompatible with the copyright policy of Wikimedia Commons that requires freely licensed images only. The template text will be replaced by call of the Template:No license template with the date of today. Thus Commons admins will start deleting the obvious cases and give local communities yet another one week chance determining the right license of a file at the unknown cases. However Commons admins urge everybody to act wisely and not to be folish and applying nonsense replacement license tags to these images. We have a static list of all affected files of PD-Soviet, so any folish action will directly lead into deletion. Arnomane 20:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)