Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Russia

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
CautionThis talk page may have a limited number of watchers. Issues concerning the copyright rules of the Russian Federation 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.
[edit]

There's no criteria that how in general Russian logos are copyrighted, only says "hey, automated camera images are public domain" and "hey, I know that was made very simply but it's indeed copyrighted". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no link to the resolution. --AVRS (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are Russian signatures copyrighted or not?

[edit]

@A.Savin, Андрей Романенко, Butko, EugeneZelenko, George Chernilevsky, Maxim, Putnik, Rubin16, Well-Informed Optimist, and Ymblanter: IIRC some recent signature-related deletion requests are about the situation in Russia, do we have informations on this topic? Note that the Russian here means signatures within the territory of Russia, not only "in Russian language" (but also in Bashkir, Buryat, Chechen, Chuvash, Komi, Oirat, Ossetic, Tatar, Tuvan, Udmurt, Yakut...) Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Spade может ты что-то о практике знаешь? rubin16 (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not know direct court practice about signatures in copyright-specific contex.
Recently we had discussed this question on w:ru:Википедия:Форум/Архив/Авторское_право.
In my opinion, based on civil legislation in whole and regulation for documents circulation, signature is name handwritten by person - it is technical tool for authenticity verification, and in such contex it is uncoprtightable - it is not act of creativity and not work of science, literature, or art. Alex Spade (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unpublished works

[edit]

What are the rules around unpublished works, e.g., historical/archival images from the 1920 that were never published? Would be helpful for this page to address these. czar 21:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea

[edit]

Photos, that are made in Crimea must be legal by Ukranian, not Russial law, correct? ·Carn 13:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the last nine years we tend to require that it should be legal in both, but may be it is time to reconsider. (We are talking about post-1954 photos, before that issues are obviously complicated). Ymblanter (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plz, specify your question. Are you asking about Public Domain, Freedom of Panorama, or both? Alex Spade (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Formally they are subject to the Ukrainian laws, but in practice locals will definitely deal with the Russian ones. In fact, it entirely depends on how far Wikipedia would be willing to go to keep these images. Alexander Davronov (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NoFoP should be amended

[edit]

Hi. NoFoP rule should be amended due to vague court practices. In fact, acccording to papers (in Russian) I've seen the law courts routinely refuse to accept complaints over images posted on the internet unless the plaintiff can prove his authorship (rights over the work in question) and (often) commercial use. (see [1]). Otherwise complaints are returned to plaintiff without satisfacion (i.e. dissmissed).

Based on NoFoP at least two images were challenged to be removed:

--Alexander Davronov (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not important whether any precations are taken or not cause rulling regime in Russia ain't gonna honor the law. It can even ban entire wikipedia at its will. Putin doesn't like anything he can't control. On the other hand, there is no basis for this NoFoP-in-Russia policy. It's virtually unsubstantiated by any sources. You can't cite one single article from Civilian Code cause Court Proceedings may drastically differ. They also have to follow Civil Proceedings of the Court, which regulate how copyright over works may be assessed. I think Commons approach is mostly arbitrary in this case and just follows weird precations. 5.23.107.150 13:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is unimportant, "who is Mr. Putin" or if Wikipedia will be blocked in Russia or will not. Mention judicial proceedings is not one. The Commons and Wikipedia do not take Russian or other national civil procedure legislation (ГПК РФ) into account. Alex Spade (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex Spade: The Commons and Wikipedia do not take Russian or other national civil procedure legislation (ГПК РФ) into account. Sorry, but that's exactly what Commons:TOO Russia does. The first subsection basically reads: Governing laws. The same for others territories laws lol. Don't keep us for stupid. Alexander Davronov (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand, what are you meaning. Alex Spade (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in 2014, copyright legislation in Russia was significantly changed. In accordance with Article 1276 of the Civil Code of Russia, images of works of art, buildings, etc. may be freely published if they are located "in a place open to the public or visible from that place." [2] A place open to free visits should be understood as a place where any person can be: exhibitions, clubs, discos, museums, parks, squares, metro, train station, street areas, etc. (Definitions of the Perm Regional Court dated July 29, 2013 in case No. 33-7169, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 13, 2012 No. 64-APG12-14).

In 2019-2021, a series of processes took place during which the sculptor demanded compensation from the company that produced a set of postcards, one of which depicted a monument of his work located in Yekaterinburg. As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and returned the case to the court of first instance, which rejected the sculptor’s claim, explaining that the sculpture is located in a publicly accessible place and is depicted only in one of the open sets, that is, it is not the main object of the work. [3] RG72 (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The updated article 1276 is included in "Freedom of panorama" section of page. What is your main point? Alex Spade (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to draw attention to the fact that law enforcement practice has recently appeared - thanks to the court decisions that I wrote about. They are considered precedents; lawyers refer to them when considering similar cases. Therefore, we can no longer talk about the “lack of judicial practice” as it was before. ̴̴RG72 (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • These cases are known, there are not any significant change in them. The 1st case is just confirmation of definition for places open for free attendance; the 2nd case is very specific one - it is about photo of the specific sculpture in the specific park and in the specific circumstances - it is interesting, but it can not be generalize. Alex Spade (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @RG72 the court ruling is useless for Commons. In fact, it just reinforces the limits for artists of public monuments in terms of depiction of a whole scenery and not only the monument (Russian de minimis for public spaces). Since you mentioned "the sculpture is located in a publicly accessible place and is depicted only in one of the open sets, that is, it is not the main object of the work," it just reinforces "not the main subject" rule that must be followed by commercial re-users as well as users in the new media/IT fields (where commercial uses are unavoidable). So, no, the situation hasn't changed. You may want to add this important court decision on the COM:FOP Russia page yourself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I got some free time today (despite hectic college schedule here in a Philippine school), I'll try to add that case you mentioned. Feel free to make corrections if needed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been over a year since the time I made this post and as of fall of 2024 I still believe that Russian judicial practice concerning images posted on the internt should be taken into account more than the plain words used by the law. According to the Russian Constitutional Landmark case mentioned above (see news on Court's website, [4] and [5]) NoFoP is not applicable anymore to the images of the objects situated in public spaces and therefore can be freely distributed requiring no object's (depicted on the images) copyrightholder permission. I think it's clear now that anything copyrighted that was publicly displayed (either by author himself or contractor) can be freely taken photo of and the photo can be therefore freely distributed, including for commercial purposes. If you don't want this way of your works to be imaged, then make it private. That's simple. Alexander Davronov (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is pretty clear that your opinion does not have consensus here. Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: Judging by replies like this it's pretty clear you lack any substantial or meaningful opposition to the proposal, meaning we are pretty close to the consensus. --Alexander Davronov (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so far in this thread you are the only one supporting, everyone else opposes. If this is your understanding of consensus - fine with me, but I do not think we are at the point of changing policies. Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Russian Constitutional Court in mentioned resolution postulates, that the right for usage of copyrighted work for informational and similar purposes (even with some profit earning) without copyrightholder permission granted by article 1274 of the Civil Code of the RF is higher than noncommercial/limited rights granted by part 1 of article 1276. Nevertheless, that is not enough for Commons - article 1274 is the Russian analog of fair use doctrine from the US copyright legislation, which is deprecated on Commons. Alex Spade (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is still for specific purposes only, not for any use as required in Commons. Ankry (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alexander Davronov rules are still mostly the same. An undeletion request I made was declined as "no consensus". Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-10#File:Дмитров1.jpg. Jameslwoodward's input there made me realize again what is written on COM:Collages – that one aspect of the recent court decision is still not applicable on Commons. For a collage or a montage containing at most one unfree Russian monument to be accepted here, the image of the said monument should also be present, but since it is in the deleted state, the montage or collage cannot be restored. COM:Collages requires that every source image of the components of collages or montages be always present for licensing verification purposes. Not useful to apply one aspect of the recent ruling due to the collage/montage licensing rules. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: I figure. This subsection seeks consensus on Commons:TOO Russia amendment, cause latter is entirely based on the Russian law which is applied and enforced with clear exceptions (as we seen from the case above). This should be taken into account. Commons:TOO Russia is missing an important factor: actual judicial practice. Alexander Davronov (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you confusing Commons:TOO Russia with COM:FOP Russia?
Mentioned judicial practice is not enough for FoP on Commons: there is not FoP for any usage - the usage is still limited. Alex Spade (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Russia&oldid=937357961"