Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Italy
 | This talk page may have a limited number of watchers. Issues concerning the copyright rules of Italy may get more attention if a notice of the discussion here is given at a general page like Commons:Village pump/Copyright or Commons talk:Freedom of panorama. |
Are you sure amendment to 42/2004, Art. 108, c. 3-bis("... the following are free activities carried out without profit, for the purpose of...") isn't in force?
[edit]@Nemo bis: hello. Are you sure this amendment hasn't been implemented? Can you perhaps provide some explanation as to why it is not in force? Would like to rely on the concessions, and would be useful for this page for there to be indication that such concessions exist (if they are in force).
Thanks --MarkJFernandes (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Which section would you like to add this to?
[edit]I found a document in a discussion about freedom of panorama in Italy.
It's list of protected buildings in Italy by MiBAC. (Currently this link is broken. Does anyone know of an alternate link?)
I think the buildings on that list are those that exceed threshold of originality.
In COM:TOO Italy, there is a sentence like this: Hogan Lovells states "In summary, the threshold for an industrial design product to enjoy copyright protection is still quite high and even famous industrial design products have been denied such protection by Italian Courts."
From this, I think Italy has high TOO for architecture.
So, which section would you like to add list of protected buildings in Italy by MiBAC to? FoP section? or TOO section?
Ox1997cow (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- The list of protected buildings in Italy should be an exception to the de facto FOP relative to buildings by living architects. We should add a note that for the buildings in this list at least the ToO should be considered matched. --Ruthven (msg) 14:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ruthven: That's right. FOP and TOO are different. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Term on the URAA date
[edit]I just changed some text which indicated that the extension to 70pma happened on November 16, 1994 . However, I don't see anything related to the copyright term in Legislative Decree No. 685 of November 16, 1994, implementing the Council Directive 92/100/EEC of November 19, 1992, on Rental Right and Lending Right and on Certain Rights Related to Copyright in the Field of Intellectual Property (which was adopted on November 16, 1994, though became effective December 31, 1994). Am I missing something? Indeed, the text of that 1994 link still says 50pma in article 25. Law No. 52 of February 6, 1996, laying down Provisions for the Fulfillment of Obligations deriving from Italy's Membership of the European Communities (effective February 25) did explicitly order that the various terms be increased from 50 to 70 years. That law seems to be a directive to pass further legislation within one year though, so I'm not sure it had the effect of actually extending the terms, as I'm not sure it has the transitional provisions. Those terms seem to have been implemented in Legislative Decree No. 154 of May 26, 1997, on the Implementation of the Directive No. 93/98/EC of Harmonizing the Term of Protection of Copyright and Certain Related Rights, which did indeed alter the text of the copyright law to increase most mentions of 50 years to 70 years, such as for photographs (article 32bis). Curiously though, it does not seem to have amended article 25, which is the general term. I'm not sure if that means the basic 70pma did happen earlier, or it was simply missed there. Indeed, the 1997 copyright law consolidation still says 50pma in article 25, though it's 70pma most other places. The 2001 consolidation does have the 70pma terms, but not sure if that was simply correcting something missed before, or if there was an intervening law. Either way, it seems to me that the extension to 70pma was after the URAA date.
However, in 1945 there were six-year wartime extensions enacted,[1] for any work published before August 16, 1945. I added mention of that to the main text, so it would seem as though terms were effectively 56pma on the URAA date. Artistic photographs were then protected for 56 years from creation on that date, before being restored to 70pma afterwards. So, it would seem as though it would be authors who died before 1940, anonymous works published before 1940, and artistic photos created before 1940, would be the line. Simple photos would still be 20 years, i.e. before 1976. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Incorrect wording
[edit]The policy says "*National, provincial and municipal administrations are entitled to copyright on works created and published under their name and on their behalf and expense, as are private non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies.[633/1941 art. 11] This copyright lasts for 20 years, or for 2 years for academies and other public cultural bodies, after which the rights revert to the author.[633/1941 art. 29]". The meaning of the Italian law text (you can easily check by reading it) is another: "*National, provincial and municipal administrations are entitled to copyright on works created and published under their name and on their behalf and expense, as are private non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies.[633/1941 art. 11] Copyright on such works expires after 20 years from first publication. Copyright on writings published by academies lasts two years, after which the rights revert to the author.[633/1941 art. 29]". I don't know who wrote the original policy, but it could be just a simple case of imprecise wording. If there isn't any objection (with reference to the text of the Italian law), I will correct it. Ferdi2005(talk) 18:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Ferdi2005: It's been a minute, but at least from what I remember that's not exactly what the law says. Although I don't speak Italian. So it might have just been Google Translate, but from what it sounded like the word "author" is a general term meaning "creator of the work", be that a paper or whatever, not just someone who writes say an academic paper. So it would revert back to whomever the creator is regardless of it's a written work, statue, or anything else and if the copyright holder at the time was an academy or not. Regardless, it would probably be best to at least consult with the original editor who inserted the current wording. Since I assume they were basing it on something. So who was it that added the current wording and why not ask them why the worded it the way they did instead of speculating about it? I assume they had a reason for the wording, are still active, and would be willing to clarify things if you ask them to (preferably as part of this discussion). --Adamant1 (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ferdi2005, Adamant1, Ruthven, Blackcat, Aymatth2, Nemo bis, and Sailko: (please ping other users with experience/interest in this field if know them)
Hi. As stated by Ferdi, the text is currently written incorrectly, but I agree with Adamant1 that it is better to discuss the matter. The Art. 29 of the Law n. 633/1941 states:
The duration of the exclusive rights of economic use, as stipulated in Article 11, granted to the State Administrations, the National Fascist Party, Provinces, Municipalities, Academies, public cultural institutions, as well as non-profit private entities, is twenty years from the first publication, regardless of the form in which the publication was made. For communications and papers published by Academies and other public cultural institutions, this duration is reduced to two years; after which, the author fully regains the unrestricted availability of their writings.
The first part of the paragraph establishes a general criterion that must be applied to all intellectual works, "regardless" of their type. The second part, on the other hand, sets a clear exception for a specific type of works, namely "communications and papers published by Academies and other public cultural institutions". For this particular type of intellectual works ("writings"), the rights belong to the public administration for only two years, not for twenty (+URAA to be published in here); after that, they revert to the author's ownership.
The second part of the paragraph (from "For" to "writings") is a single periodo (en: compound sentence) which consists of two proposizioni coordinate copulative (en: coordinate clauses). This is due to the presence of the semicolon instead of the period, which establishes a coordination by asyndeton. The presence of the word "writings" instead of "intellectual works" dispels any further ambiguity about what the direct object of the last clause is ("writings").
On the other hand, I think it is equally important to stress in this rules page that copyright belongs to those administrations only for the "works created and published under their name and at their expense" (Article 11). For all other types the copyright coverage is strictly the standard one (aside from the other few exceptions).
Thus, my proposal is to reintegrate the formula proposed by Ferdi2005 (with further clarifications, if needed). Please read, Commons:GVT Italy as well. --teatroge (dm) 07:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- The first part of the paragraph establishes a general criterion that must be applied to all intellectual works, "regardless" of their type. If I'm reading the first part right it's saying the durations apply to "the exclusive rights of economic use, as stipulated in Article 11." Reading over article 11 it says "State administrations, provinces and municipalities have copyright on works created and published under their name and at their own expense. The same right belongs to private bodies that do not pursue profit-making purposes, unless otherwise agreed with the authors of the published works, as well as to academies and other public cultural bodies on the collection of their documents and their publications. So the law clearly seems to be confined to "published works" in general, but with non-profits, academies and other public cultural bodies specifically "the collection of their documents and their publications."
- So in no way is it "a general criterion that must be applied to all intellectual works, "regardless" of their type." Although you could argue about what "published works" means, but "documents" pretty clearly confines confines ownership of the copyright and the specific terms to "documents" in the case of non-profits, academies and other public cultural bodies. Which should be reflected in the guideline instead of the current wording that seems to insinuate there's a general criterion that applies to all intellectual works "regardless" of their type in the case of non-profits, academies and other public cultural bodies. In other words, "National, provincial and municipal administrations are entitled to copyright on works created and published under their name and on their behalf and expense, as are private non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies" Should be changed to something like "National, provincial and municipal administrations are entitled to copyright on published works created under their name and on their behalf and expense. Whereas private non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies are entitled to copyright on the collection of their documents and their publications (highlights show suggested changes). Then I guess the specific durations would follow from there. 20 years for "published works" in the case of National, provincial and municipal administrations. Whereas as it would be 2 years for writings and "the collection of their documents and their publications" in the case of private non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies. But private non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies wouldn't own the copyright on anything other then writings or other documents to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC) --Adamant1 (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Why "non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies wouldn't own the copyright"? On the contrary, they own the copyright generally speaking for 20 years since they fall in the general provision about "State Administrations, the National Fascist Party, Provinces, Municipalities, Academies, public cultural institutions, as well as non-profit private entities". Only for communications and papers there is that specific provision with the 2 year copyright and the rollback of the copyright to the author. The reference to the article 11 is simply referred to the conditions: as Teatroge correctly stated, they must be works made on behalf of these institutions and paid by them. Friniate (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think I've stated why pretty clearly. Article 29 says it applies the "The duration of the exclusive rights of economic use, as stipulated in Article 11" and article 11 makes clear in the case of private non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies those rights have to do with "the collection of their documents and their publications." So private non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies wouldn't own the copyright on anything other then documents and/or "writings" in the case of academies as Teatroge has pointed out. Although in the case of documents or writing it would be 20 or 2 years depending. But not in the case of anything else, because as I've stated already those are the only things the law seems to say they own the copyright to. I thank that makes sense because there's lots of things created on behalf of private non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies besides documents and writing where it wouldn't make sense for them to own the copyright. Plus it would explain why article 29 uses the word "author" instead of something more general. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- First of all, article 11 clearly says that private non profit entities have the same rights as the public administrations, except in the case in which they reached different agreements with the authors. There is really no ambiguity there, so no, they don't own the copyright only on what you say. For academies and cultural public institutions I think that probably it's not the correct interpretation, since it wouldn't make much sense that they had less rights than public administrations, but I agree that there is indeed ambiguity. Friniate (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ah ok, I see now how it could make sense: the legislator probably wanted to exclude from the 20 years provision the books or the articles published by universities and so on. In that case it actually makes sense. Anyway non profit private entities do not have anything to do with that, as I already explained.
- I'd rewrite the guideline in this way:
- National, provincial and municipal administrations are entitled to copyright on works created and published under their name and on their behalf and expense, as are private non-profit entities except if they had different kind of agreements with the authors.[633/1941 art. 11] Copyright on such works expires after 20 years from first publication. Copyright on writings (communications and memories) published by academies and other public cultural bodies lasts two years, after which the rights revert to the author.[633/1941 art. 29]
- Friniate (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- At least according to this version of the law there are two separate parts of article 11. The first having to do government agencies being "Copyright in works created and published under the name and at the expense of the State, the Provinces or the Communes shall belong to them. Whereas the having to do with other types of legal entities says "In the absence of agreement to the contrary with the authors of the works published, the same right shall also belong to private legal entities of a non-profit-making character, as well as to the Academies and other public cultural organizations, in respect of records of their proceedings and their publications." The paragraphs are clearly separate and deal with separate things though.
- First of all, article 11 clearly says that private non profit entities have the same rights as the public administrations, except in the case in which they reached different agreements with the authors. There is really no ambiguity there, so no, they don't own the copyright only on what you say. For academies and cultural public institutions I think that probably it's not the correct interpretation, since it wouldn't make much sense that they had less rights than public administrations, but I agree that there is indeed ambiguity. Friniate (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think I've stated why pretty clearly. Article 29 says it applies the "The duration of the exclusive rights of economic use, as stipulated in Article 11" and article 11 makes clear in the case of private non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies those rights have to do with "the collection of their documents and their publications." So private non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies wouldn't own the copyright on anything other then documents and/or "writings" in the case of academies as Teatroge has pointed out. Although in the case of documents or writing it would be 20 or 2 years depending. But not in the case of anything else, because as I've stated already those are the only things the law seems to say they own the copyright to. I thank that makes sense because there's lots of things created on behalf of private non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies besides documents and writing where it wouldn't make sense for them to own the copyright. Plus it would explain why article 29 uses the word "author" instead of something more general. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Why "non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies wouldn't own the copyright"? On the contrary, they own the copyright generally speaking for 20 years since they fall in the general provision about "State Administrations, the National Fascist Party, Provinces, Municipalities, Academies, public cultural institutions, as well as non-profit private entities". Only for communications and papers there is that specific provision with the 2 year copyright and the rollback of the copyright to the author. The reference to the article 11 is simply referred to the conditions: as Teatroge correctly stated, they must be works made on behalf of these institutions and paid by them. Friniate (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- So in no way is it "a general criterion that must be applied to all intellectual works, "regardless" of their type." Although you could argue about what "published works" means, but "documents" pretty clearly confines confines ownership of the copyright and the specific terms to "documents" in the case of non-profits, academies and other public cultural bodies. Which should be reflected in the guideline instead of the current wording that seems to insinuate there's a general criterion that applies to all intellectual works "regardless" of their type in the case of non-profits, academies and other public cultural bodies. In other words, "National, provincial and municipal administrations are entitled to copyright on works created and published under their name and on their behalf and expense, as are private non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies" Should be changed to something like "National, provincial and municipal administrations are entitled to copyright on published works created under their name and on their behalf and expense. Whereas private non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies are entitled to copyright on the collection of their documents and their publications (highlights show suggested changes). Then I guess the specific durations would follow from there. 20 years for "published works" in the case of National, provincial and municipal administrations. Whereas as it would be 2 years for writings and "the collection of their documents and their publications" in the case of private non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies. But private non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies wouldn't own the copyright on anything other then writings or other documents to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC) --Adamant1 (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- In the case of government agencies they own the copyright in works created and published under the name and at their expense." But with other entities, including non-profits, it's purely "in respect of records of their proceedings and their publications." And if your response is that it only applies to academies then I'll point out the phrase "as well as to the Academies." Meaning they all share the same right to own the copyright "in respect of records of their proceedings and their publications." If you disagree with that, cool, but then what exactly does "in respect of records of their proceedings and their publications" have to do with it if not what they have the right to own the copyright to? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Brief preamble. I am happy to give my opinion on entirely legitimate doubts, but I apologize in advance if I will be a bit verbose, it is not meant to be disrespectful or condescending. Rendering legal concepts in a different language, especially one used predominantly in a completely different legal system with a diffrent legal vocabulary (common-law, civil-law), is not simple even for someone who know the topic, and often requires a few more words, references and mutual patience. Thank you. :-)
- The sole legally binding and up-to-date version of Law No. 633/1941 is the one published on Normattiva.it (the official website of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers). The linked translation, although helpful for our discussion, is an outdated unofficial draft not authored by Italian authorities. It adopts an interpretative rather than a literal approach, rendering it, unfortunately, unsuitable as a reliable source, given the availability of the official version.
- It goes without saying that it is necessary to consider the combinato disposto (combined provisions) of two bound articles. It is not a coincidence that both articles are divided into two distinct, almost mirror-like sentences.
- Article 11.
- The first sentence establishes the entities to which the article applies: "State Administrations, National Fascist Party, Provinces, Municipalities". The sentence then defines the object of the article: the "right of authorship" (copyright) on the "works created and published under their name and on their behalf and expense".
- The second sentence states that: "the same right" ("of authorship") applies to other entities, namely "non-profit private entities, academies, and other public cultural entities". The sentence then mentions: "the collection of their acts and publications", which is ad addendum not ad excludendum, as clarified by the combined provisions of Article 29 which follows.
- Article 29.
- The first sentence begins clearly outlining all the entities to which the article must be applied: "State Administrations, National Fascist Party, Provinces, Municipalities, Academies, public cultural entities, as well as the non-profit private entities". The duration of copyright for the "works created and published under their name and on their behalf and expense" is "twenty years from the first publication".
- Combined provisions
- The second sentence of Article 11 refers to "Academies and other public cultural entities".
- The second sentence of Article 29 also refers "Academies and other public cultural entities".
- The second sentence of Article 11 refers to "collections of their acts and publications".
- The second sentence of Article 29 also refers to "communications and writings published by them".
- It finally specifies that only for this last specific type of works "the duration is reduced to two years".
- To sum up
- The two articles confirm and clarify each other, establishing a single exception. Thus, Friniate proposal seems to me a very accurate yet concise summary. However, I would slightly modify two parts. Adding works created during the administration of the former National Fascist Party and including 'collections of acts' among the works more restricted.
- So, here is my proposal derived from this conversation:
National, provincial and municipal administrations are entitled to copyright on works created and published under their name and on their behalf and expense (including those produced by the former National Fascist Party) as are private and public non-profit entities except had different kind of agreements with the authors.[633/1941 art. 11] Copyright on such works expires after 20 years from first publication. Copyright on writings (communications, collections of thier acts and memories) published by academies and other public or private non-profit cultural bodies lasts two years, after which the rights revert to the author.[633/1941 art. 29]
- Brief preamble. I am happy to give my opinion on entirely legitimate doubts, but I apologize in advance if I will be a bit verbose, it is not meant to be disrespectful or condescending. Rendering legal concepts in a different language, especially one used predominantly in a completely different legal system with a diffrent legal vocabulary (common-law, civil-law), is not simple even for someone who know the topic, and often requires a few more words, references and mutual patience. Thank you. :-)
- --teatroge (dm) 05:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know if I agree with that. The two paragraphs in article one are separate clauses (I think numbered 1 and 2) in the actual law. Not the draft, which while I agree is outdated doesn't really diverge from the final version enough to change the meaning of the last bit that I've said outlines what private non-profits can own the copyright in. It still says "the same right belongs to private bodies that do not pursue profit-making purposes, unless otherwise agreed with the authors of the published works, as well as to academies and other public cultural bodies on the collection of their documents and their publications. Which is really no different then the draft saying "in respect of records of their proceedings and their publications." And I still don't see an answer as to what exactly "in respect of records of their proceedings and their publications" is refering to if not what exactly private non-profit entities can own the copyright to. Or are you just going to act like it's a language issue and that's not really what the law says or otherwise continue to ignore it?
- --teatroge (dm) 05:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- You can say that the two articles clarify each other, but the articles are in the same law and it doesn't make sense that article 11 would specify the copyright to works can be owned by profit non-profit entities "in respect of records of their proceedings and their publications", but then article 29 say they own the copyright in everything else regardless. As you say article 29 "clarifies" article 11. It doesn't nullify or cancel it out just because 29 is a larger number then 11. So the second paragraph of article 11 and the bit about how private bodies have the right to own the copyright on the collection of their documents and their publications still applies. Or are you going to argue that article 11 completely irrelevant? Or maybe just the second paragraph? Or let me guess, "something something Italian language." And just to be clear, I don't mean that to be disrespectful or condescending. I'm genuinely curious why you think "on the collection of their documents and their publications" is in there to begin with and what it has to do with, if it's not to clarify what non-profit entities can own the copyright to or if article 29 otherwise makes it irrelevant. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 @Teatroge Basically Ferdi2005 said it all in the first paragraph of this discussion. The "For communications and papers..." refers to scientific publication, which is a clause similar to the embargo of the patents or of many scientific projects: after few years, the authors are free to do whatever they want with their paper, but when the discovery is fresh, it's up to the Academy to decide how to publish the results.
- The two articles discuss different matters: one is about the duration of the copyright, the other one is about who is the copyright holder. The law makes perfect sense in that way: art. 11 states that the copyright holds 20 years in certain cases, but in other situations (scientific papers) the copyright holder changes after 2 years... then a scientific paper is PD 70 years after the dead of the authors.
- However, in general, the copyright holder of a work done for hire is the client. This has been recently confirmed by la Corte di Cassazione n. 8433/2020: "in materia di diritto d'autore il committente è titolare, a titolo derivativo o originario (secondo contrapposte tesi dottrinali), in via esclusiva, dei diritti di sfruttamento economico delle opere dell'ingegno realizzate su commissione dal lavoratore autonomo, ove quest'ultimo si sia obbligato, dietro compenso, a svolgere un'attività creativa affinché la controparte possa poi sfruttarne economicamente i risultati, spettando invece all'autore i diritti morali" (NdA bold mine). Then, if the copyright holder is one of the entities listed in art. 11, the work is PD after 20 years. Ruthven (msg) 08:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily disagree with that. Although the phrase at issue here on the collection of their documents and their publications comes from article 11, which is before 29 lays out the specific durations of ownership. So it's not really clear if the phrase means non-profits only own the copyright on the collection of their documents and their publications or if it's referring to something completely different. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say it's referring to the duration of the copyright term though since again, durations are covered in a different part of the law. Probably the meaning of it is something along the lines of "non-profit entities own the copyright on the collection of their documents and their publications", which makes more sense to me then your reading of it because that's what article 11 is about to begin with, who owns the copyright to what. Not the duration of the copyright or what types of works have which terms. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- No Adamant, there is no way that it can have that meaning, and I guess you'll have to trust the native speakers on this point. The law clearly states that non profit academies have the same right (except bla bla) that national administrations have, as well as academies, but these ones only on their acts etc... The part about the acts is clearly related only to academies, the sentence would need to be written in a totally different way in order to let it apply also to the non-profit private entities. Friniate (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict × x4) @Adamant1: You are welcome, I enjoy intelligent conversations. However, I am sincerely struggling to understand your doubt and to comprehend where the lack of clarity lies.
- Article 11 is part of "CHAPTER II" of the law, which is titled and deals with "Subjects of the right". Article 29 is part of "CHAPTER III", "Section III", which is titled and addresses the "Duration of economic rights of the work". This is clearly stated in the text of the law. Can we agree on this point at least? Ok.
- Article 11 does exactly what it is supposed to do: it lists the "subjects of the right". Then it anticipates, by citing them, the fact that for certain of those subjects (cultural bodies) there will be an exception regarding their economic rights.
- Article 29 does exactly what it is supposed to do: it begins by clearly summarizing who were the "subjects" established by Article 11 (citing it), lists them one by one, unequivocally including academic and cultural bodies in the list. Afterwards, it elucidates the previously mentioned exception in Article 11: specifying the nature of the exception (2 years instead of 20), the type of works affected (would you prefer to call them writings? acts?), and the entities involved (cultural bodies). What is the doubt? The text is clear.
- You say, "article 11 specify the copyright to works can be owned by profit non-profit entities "in respect of records of their proceedings and their publications", but then article 29 say they own the copyright in everything else". Nope, it doesn't. Both Article 29 and Article 11 specify that there is an exception for certain subjects (cultural bodies).
- Not only is this entirely normal, but it is simply what the law says. --teatroge (dm) 09:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe it's a language issue, but it seems like the problem here is that I'm asking how you popped your car tire and instead of answering the question your responding by going into the history of spheres as geometrical objects. I already know what chapter or section of the law article 29 is in. I didn't ask to explain the different chapters of the law or what they partain to. I simply asked what "regarding the collection of their documents and their publications" means and has to do with what non-profit entities hold the copyright to in the context of article 11. And Friniate, you can go off about how i should "trust the native speakers on this point" all day long, but I obviously can't "trust native speakers" about it when no ones answered my question, said what exactly the phrase has to do with, or how exactly it relates to the rest of article 11. It's a simple question and I'm more then willing to "trust the native speakers on the point" once one of you've told me what exactly the point in the phrase is and how it relates to the rest of the article. No one here is questioning what chapter of the law article 29 is in though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 The sentence in Italian is: Lo stesso diritto spetta agli enti privati che non perseguano scopi di lucro, salvo diverso accordo con gli autori delle opere pubblicate, nonché alle Accademie e agli altri enti pubblici culturali sulla raccolta dei loro atti e sulle loro pubblicazioni..
- "Atti" (translated in "documents") means "Atti di convegno", in English "Conference proceedings".
- "Pubblicazioni" (translated in "publications") means "papers", meaning "conference papers" or "journals" (but also "books") in the Academic slang.
- Hope that clarifies. Ruthven (msg) 10:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Not really. I know the phrase has the word "documents" in it. I've said as much multiple times. I didn't ask what the phrase says or for someone to read it back to me either. I asked what the point in the phrase is and how it relates to the rest of the article. I'm sure you get the difference. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict ×1)You say "I simply asked what "regarding the collection of their documents and their publications" means and has to do with what non-profit entities hold the copyright to in the context of article 11". I hope this will answer:
- "Lo stesso diritto spettta [...] alle accademie e agli enti culturali pubblici [...] sulla raccolta dei loro atti e pubblicazioni" means:
- "The same right applies [...] to Academies and public cultural institutions [...] regarding [about/concerning/as for] the collection of their acts and publications".
- "The same right" is the "copyright".
- "The collection of their acts and publishing" simply means "the collection of their acts and publishing", art. 29 further explains calling them "communications and published papers/memories". If you have any different guesses about the meaning, please write them, I think Ruthven has already well explained the meaning of the words. All these facts together are "the point".
- "Their" ("They") are the "cultural bodies".
- Copyright may have different durations and limitations, but it still exists and this has to be stated in the Law (especially a National Copyright Act!). For eg, also CC-by licensed files are covered by copyright and has to be stated. This is what is done in article 11. Exceptions and limits could be stated by law.
- I am sorry, but I don't really understand what further answer you expect to receive to the question "how it relates to the rest of the article". The answer is in the many previous replies and in the text itself. Regarding only my answers: I explained the chapter in which the articles are located, their function, the connection between them, the meaning of the words... Sincerely --teatroge (dm) 11:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- I get all that, but again, it's not related to what I was asking. I know "all these facts together" are "the point", but "the point" your making has nothing to do with my question. Maybe it would help if I rephrase it and clarify things though since it's possible I just wasn't as clear as I could have been. Assuming we agree that there are two terms depending, one where the copyright lapses back to the original author after 2 years and another where it just expires after 20. So what types of works and under what conditions would the 2 year or 20 year term apply? Like the law says for academies that they own the copyright "regarding the collection of their documents and their publications." So what exactly does that mean and how long would they own the copyright in that case for? 2 or 20 years?
- (Edit conflict ×1)You say "I simply asked what "regarding the collection of their documents and their publications" means and has to do with what non-profit entities hold the copyright to in the context of article 11". I hope this will answer:
- Not really. I know the phrase has the word "documents" in it. I've said as much multiple times. I didn't ask what the phrase says or for someone to read it back to me either. I asked what the point in the phrase is and how it relates to the rest of the article. I'm sure you get the difference. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 The sentence in Italian is: Lo stesso diritto spetta agli enti privati che non perseguano scopi di lucro, salvo diverso accordo con gli autori delle opere pubblicate, nonché alle Accademie e agli altri enti pubblici culturali sulla raccolta dei loro atti e sulle loro pubblicazioni..
- Maybe it's a language issue, but it seems like the problem here is that I'm asking how you popped your car tire and instead of answering the question your responding by going into the history of spheres as geometrical objects. I already know what chapter or section of the law article 29 is in. I didn't ask to explain the different chapters of the law or what they partain to. I simply asked what "regarding the collection of their documents and their publications" means and has to do with what non-profit entities hold the copyright to in the context of article 11. And Friniate, you can go off about how i should "trust the native speakers on this point" all day long, but I obviously can't "trust native speakers" about it when no ones answered my question, said what exactly the phrase has to do with, or how exactly it relates to the rest of article 11. It's a simple question and I'm more then willing to "trust the native speakers on the point" once one of you've told me what exactly the point in the phrase is and how it relates to the rest of the article. No one here is questioning what chapter of the law article 29 is in though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- No Adamant, there is no way that it can have that meaning, and I guess you'll have to trust the native speakers on this point. The law clearly states that non profit academies have the same right (except bla bla) that national administrations have, as well as academies, but these ones only on their acts etc... The part about the acts is clearly related only to academies, the sentence would need to be written in a totally different way in order to let it apply also to the non-profit private entities. Friniate (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily disagree with that. Although the phrase at issue here on the collection of their documents and their publications comes from article 11, which is before 29 lays out the specific durations of ownership. So it's not really clear if the phrase means non-profits only own the copyright on the collection of their documents and their publications or if it's referring to something completely different. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say it's referring to the duration of the copyright term though since again, durations are covered in a different part of the law. Probably the meaning of it is something along the lines of "non-profit entities own the copyright on the collection of their documents and their publications", which makes more sense to me then your reading of it because that's what article 11 is about to begin with, who owns the copyright to what. Not the duration of the copyright or what types of works have which terms. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- You can say that the two articles clarify each other, but the articles are in the same law and it doesn't make sense that article 11 would specify the copyright to works can be owned by profit non-profit entities "in respect of records of their proceedings and their publications", but then article 29 say they own the copyright in everything else regardless. As you say article 29 "clarifies" article 11. It doesn't nullify or cancel it out just because 29 is a larger number then 11. So the second paragraph of article 11 and the bit about how private bodies have the right to own the copyright on the collection of their documents and their publications still applies. Or are you going to argue that article 11 completely irrelevant? Or maybe just the second paragraph? Or let me guess, "something something Italian language." And just to be clear, I don't mean that to be disrespectful or condescending. I'm genuinely curious why you think "on the collection of their documents and their publications" is in there to begin with and what it has to do with, if it's not to clarify what non-profit entities can own the copyright to or if article 29 otherwise makes it irrelevant. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Like say a student writes a term paper as part of writing assignment. Would they own the copyright to the paper? Would the university? If it's the university would the copyright lapse after 2 years and then be owned by the student, would it not be owned by the student at all and expire after 20 years, or something completely different? Or maybe the university retains the copyright only if they were collecting and publishing student papers to begin with since the law clearly says they own the copyright "in the collection and publishing of documents", not "in the creation of documents"? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm lost at this point, how would this be relevant to commons? Friniate (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- How is the length of a copyright term for and who retains it not relevant to Commons? It's a pretty simple question and you guys are supposedly the experts here since you speak Italian and I don't. So you should be able to answer it. How about I give you an easier example though since you apparently can't answer that one for some reason. Say I want to upload an image of a college dormitory in Italy where the architect hasn't been dead for more then 70 years yet. Who would retain the copyright in that case and how long would they retain it for? I assume the copyright would be retained by the architect for the normal term of 70 years since neither building a dormitory or photographing one has anything to do with "the collection of their documents and their publications" by the academy. Let alone "essays." --Adamant1 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 Nobody is talking about assignment papers or about college dormitories photos shot by students. Maybe in English the work "paper" is too generic. The right translation in this case would be - as I've already written, I reckon - "scientific publication". By that, I mean the articles you read in journals like Nature or Science. The use of "document" in the translation, is not precise enough. Eventually, the text you provided it's a fair translation for general use, but too sloppy for an accurate analysis. The Italian original is much more precise. Ruthven (msg) 12:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Nobody is talking about assignment papers or about college dormitories photos shot by students. I think you need to read through the discussion. Multiple people have brought up "writings published by academies." Maybe that doesn't include student papers, but I don't what else would be published in an academic "scientific publication" (your wording) other then research papers written by students. Although I agree that "documents" is not precise enough, but that's why I'm asking. Since the law isn't really clear about it and I don't think you can have a guideline with multiple copyright owners and terms depending on the type of work, how many years has passed, Etc. Etc. unless we actually know what applies when, for how long, and to who. The question about college dormitories photos is tangential to that, but I assume the section on FOP will be edited eventually to reflect the suggested changes. So I'd like to know exactly who owns the copyright and for how long on buildings before that happens. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 Nobody is talking about assignment papers or about college dormitories photos shot by students. Maybe in English the work "paper" is too generic. The right translation in this case would be - as I've already written, I reckon - "scientific publication". By that, I mean the articles you read in journals like Nature or Science. The use of "document" in the translation, is not precise enough. Eventually, the text you provided it's a fair translation for general use, but too sloppy for an accurate analysis. The Italian original is much more precise. Ruthven (msg) 12:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- How is the length of a copyright term for and who retains it not relevant to Commons? It's a pretty simple question and you guys are supposedly the experts here since you speak Italian and I don't. So you should be able to answer it. How about I give you an easier example though since you apparently can't answer that one for some reason. Say I want to upload an image of a college dormitory in Italy where the architect hasn't been dead for more then 70 years yet. Who would retain the copyright in that case and how long would they retain it for? I assume the copyright would be retained by the architect for the normal term of 70 years since neither building a dormitory or photographing one has anything to do with "the collection of their documents and their publications" by the academy. Let alone "essays." --Adamant1 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm lost at this point, how would this be relevant to commons? Friniate (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama and government works
[edit]I have just added the outcome of the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/10#Italy FOP again and artwork copyrights supposedly held by city councils of Italy to COM:Italy.
In this discussion, there also was the proposal to develop templates to be added to categories and/or files when one of the authorizations received by Wikimedia Italia (for the Wiki Loves Monuments contest) applies. I'll insert a copy the relevant section below:
What we here at Wikimedia Commons can do:
- add notes to the relevant sections of COM:Italy (like the fop and government works sections)
- add notes to the categories of affected buildings and monuments pointing to the collected authorizations (web links), the content of those authorizations (just for WLM or for everybody, from which years etc.), point out relevant parts of Italian law etc.
- design templates for the purpose of those category notes.
Considering how many buildings and monuments are involved, that would be a massive effort. It can't just be done by one or two users, and it will take time, probably years.
Are there any concrete proposals for the notes at COM:Italy, for the notes at affected categories, for templates etc.? --Rosenzweig τ 13:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Rosenzweig with respect to images of authorized public art and architecture, I already gave a possible suggestion above, which is to tag all images of all copyrighted authorized structures with two templates, one concerning city / comuni authorization (for structures with city authorizations) and one concerning diocesan authorizations (for structures with diocesan authorizations). Probable template names are {{Italy-comune-authorization}} for the former case and {{Italy-diocesan-authorization}} for the latter case (anyone can come up with better names for the templates). Naturally we would categorize tagged images, perhaps automatically through the template itself, just like many FoP and PD templates.
- Through this, all images of copyrighted structures with such authrorizations are categorized under either of the two categories generated by the aforementioned two templates. This is useful in case the artists suddenly change mind and no longer honor authorizations. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- It also needs to be determined if and under what circumstances the authorizations extend to photographs taken outside of the WLMI events. The wording in at least some of the authorizations seem to indicate they don't extend to photographs taken outside of the events, while some others do. There should really be a template for both instances that can be added to the categories for the monuments. As well as well ones that clearly state the monument was created on behalf and at the cost of the government of Italy. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Now admittedly I'm not very experienced at creating such templates as suggested by JWilz12345. Are there any suggestions, recommendations for similar templates to model these templates after? We'd need some text and a link to the WM Italia page where the PDF files of these autorizations are stored. --Rosenzweig τ 13:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for continuing the discussion. Just to add an addendum to my last comment, if we assume the arch dioceses retains the copyright to works created on their behalf as private non-profit entities, then it needs to be determined when exactly that applies or not. Since apparently churches in Italy are also sometimes considered to be for profit enterprises. At least that's what Friniate has stated in other conversations. Regardless, I assume the permissions wouldn't be valid in those cases, but there should really be a template saying if the specific churches are for profit or not so there's no confusion about it. Otherwise people won't have any of knowing if images of them are copyright violations or not to begin with. Maybe something like "Images of this church are in the public domain due to the copyright lapsing after 20 years in cases of works created and published under their name and on their behalf and expense, as private non-profit entities" or the reverse if it hasn't been more then 20 years yet. Really, I guess the same would go government buildings where there's no permission to photograph them. Anyway, something like "NoFoP-category" but specifically for churches and government buildings that states the 20 year term. Although I have no idea if it would be better as a specific license or a warning that can be added to categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- The whole church / diocese situation is still unclear to me, especially if the church or dioceses are among the group of corporate bodies which are apparently treated similar to the state in Italian copyright. --Rosenzweig τ 13:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, for the upteenth time, I never stated anything like that, please stop misquoting me without even having the common decency of pinging me. Dioceses are not private non-profit entities since they can do for-profit activities, otherwise all the DRs that you have opened about churches should have been closed keeping the images. On the other side, private non-profit entities are parified by the law to the state institutions. It's not really a common case, I can remember only one DR in which this was relevant, but I think that we should consider adding also that part of the law to the commons' guideline. Thank you Rosenzweig for your work. Friniate (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Friniate: What you just said essentially what I was telling Rosenzweig. So I'm not really sure what the disagreement is about. But you really need to stop being defense every time you reply to me and assume good faith. It's possible I got something wrong since it's been a minute. If so, just point it out. I could really care less, but the angry, belligerent attitude about this on your end really isn't helpful. It's not a super clear thing to begin with and there's a lot of different aspects to it. No one here is intentionally trying to miscite the facts or what you said. So calm down about it and lets move this forward. I'll look through DRs to find your comments if that's important, but I don't think it matters anyway. Although I don't want you to act like I'm just maliciously misciting you for no reason or anything when that's not I'm doing either. I'm more then willing to with all Dioceses being for-profit enterprise though. I could really give a crap as long as it's consistent, documented and easily verifiable. That's really my only dog in this fight. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- I thought that that "Friniate has stated" was referred to "if we assume the arch dioceses retains the copyright to works created on their behalf as private non-profit entities", if that was not the case then fine, my bad. Friniate (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- No it wasn't. Although maybe I could have been clearer about it. Regardless, here's my issue and maybe you can clarify it so we can move this forward, but here you say "Dioceses are not private non-profit entities since they can do for-profit activities." Whereas in this DR you said "the activities of churches can also be for profit according the italian law." Ruthven then followed up your comment by saying "this diocese is registered as a non-profit entity." Meaning it sounds like churches of the dioceses can be non-profit or for profit depending. Otherwise I don't know why you would have said churches can also be for profit or Ruthven would have stated that specific dioceses was registered as a non-profit. "can also be for profit" kind of insinuates that they can also be not for profit. Same goes for "this diocese is registered as a non-profit", which makes it sound like others aren't registered that way. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Ruthven: said unless the rights belong to the client (the Diocese of Savona) and this diocese is registered as a non-profit entity, it was an hypothesis for the sake of the discussion, not a certainty. Anyway, I don't know if a specific diocese can be registered as a non-profit entity, what I've always meant is that we can not safely assume that they are non-profit, unless we can find more specific infos on a specific case. Friniate (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, OK. That makes a little more sense then it did, but it's still not super clear. Let alone do I have any idea how that would work in practice. Maybe @Ruthven: can further expand on things though. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 There's not much to expand on. I'll just repeat the same thing in a different way, hoping it will be clearer for the reader. The Church as a whole does not have a specific status (as Rosenzweig wrote above): each of its entities has a different legal status. This means that one diocese may be registered as a charity and another as a profit-making entity. I'm afraid we'll have to check this on a case-by-case basis (as we always do with everything on Commons: there's never a 'blanket' deletion process).
- So, OK for having templates for Italian monuments, given that they link the specific permission document (NB: The permission can be on WMI server, as usually done, but can also be published by the diocese/municipality on their website). Ruthven (msg) 19:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- we'll have to check this on a case-by-case basis (as we always do with everything on Commons @Ruthven: OK. I don't think there's any other instance where we have to check the legal status of an entity in order to figure out if images of it are legal or not. Regardless, how exactly is anyone suppose to find that information to begin with? I assume it's not readily available on the websites of individual churches. So is there somewhere, like a database of profit-making entities in Italy, that we can use to confirm the legal status' of churches there? Or do we just check the websites of specific churches and then delete the images on the presumption that they are for-profit if the site doesn't say anything? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, OK. That makes a little more sense then it did, but it's still not super clear. Let alone do I have any idea how that would work in practice. Maybe @Ruthven: can further expand on things though. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Ruthven: said unless the rights belong to the client (the Diocese of Savona) and this diocese is registered as a non-profit entity, it was an hypothesis for the sake of the discussion, not a certainty. Anyway, I don't know if a specific diocese can be registered as a non-profit entity, what I've always meant is that we can not safely assume that they are non-profit, unless we can find more specific infos on a specific case. Friniate (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- No it wasn't. Although maybe I could have been clearer about it. Regardless, here's my issue and maybe you can clarify it so we can move this forward, but here you say "Dioceses are not private non-profit entities since they can do for-profit activities." Whereas in this DR you said "the activities of churches can also be for profit according the italian law." Ruthven then followed up your comment by saying "this diocese is registered as a non-profit entity." Meaning it sounds like churches of the dioceses can be non-profit or for profit depending. Otherwise I don't know why you would have said churches can also be for profit or Ruthven would have stated that specific dioceses was registered as a non-profit. "can also be for profit" kind of insinuates that they can also be not for profit. Same goes for "this diocese is registered as a non-profit", which makes it sound like others aren't registered that way. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- I thought that that "Friniate has stated" was referred to "if we assume the arch dioceses retains the copyright to works created on their behalf as private non-profit entities", if that was not the case then fine, my bad. Friniate (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Friniate: What you just said essentially what I was telling Rosenzweig. So I'm not really sure what the disagreement is about. But you really need to stop being defense every time you reply to me and assume good faith. It's possible I got something wrong since it's been a minute. If so, just point it out. I could really care less, but the angry, belligerent attitude about this on your end really isn't helpful. It's not a super clear thing to begin with and there's a lot of different aspects to it. No one here is intentionally trying to miscite the facts or what you said. So calm down about it and lets move this forward. I'll look through DRs to find your comments if that's important, but I don't think it matters anyway. Although I don't want you to act like I'm just maliciously misciting you for no reason or anything when that's not I'm doing either. I'm more then willing to with all Dioceses being for-profit enterprise though. I could really give a crap as long as it's consistent, documented and easily verifiable. That's really my only dog in this fight. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, for the upteenth time, I never stated anything like that, please stop misquoting me without even having the common decency of pinging me. Dioceses are not private non-profit entities since they can do for-profit activities, otherwise all the DRs that you have opened about churches should have been closed keeping the images. On the other side, private non-profit entities are parified by the law to the state institutions. It's not really a common case, I can remember only one DR in which this was relevant, but I think that we should consider adding also that part of the law to the commons' guideline. Thank you Rosenzweig for your work. Friniate (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- The whole church / diocese situation is still unclear to me, especially if the church or dioceses are among the group of corporate bodies which are apparently treated similar to the state in Italian copyright. --Rosenzweig τ 13:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Government works
[edit]The fact that the copyright of the buildings commissioned and paid by italian public administrations is held by them, is confirmed by this legal guide (page 24), that cites this deliberation of the authority for public works and this sentence of the Administrative Court of Sicily and other two verdicts of the State Council and of the Court of Genova.
Therefore, I would rewrite the present guideline in this way: According to the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/10#Italy FOP again and artwork copyrights supposedly held by city councils of Italy, buildings and monuments commissioned and paid for by the Italian state (including regions, cities etc.) are also official works (government works), and the copyright in these cases is held by the state or its respective subdivision. This interpretation is backed up by legal guides and verdicts by italian courts <ref> See ecc ecc, here I would put the links above</ref>
Does anyone has any observation? I've never changed a guideline before, so please, if there is any mistake correct me. Friniate (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sure! Don't forget the Corte di Cassazione n. 8433/2020 that Ruthven was citing. Ferdi2005(talk) 11:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wait, that case was not specifically about public administrations though... Friniate (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Just wanted to say I support the changes and good work by @Friniate: finding the information. Thanks for researching it. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! :-) Friniate (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Just wanted to say I support the changes and good work by @Friniate: finding the information. Thanks for researching it. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wait, that case was not specifically about public administrations though... Friniate (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)