Commons talk:Stamps/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Andorra

Andorra is missing in this list. What is the status on stamps from Andorra? --Gereon K. (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

According to Postal services in Andorra there are no Andorra issued stamps. Instead both France and Spain issue stamps inscribed for Andorra because they run the postal service, so I have to presume that those country's stamp copyright laws apply. For France that is 70 year after the death of both engraver and designer, whose names are usually printed on the stamps. The French entry has a list of several names and dates that can be useful (most likely incomplete as I occasionally find unlisted names and details). For Spain it seems generally accepted that 70 years pma applies though there is a earlier 80 year rule for pre-1987 stamps. Unless someone else knows more or better. Ww2censor (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

India

The copyright status of Indian stamps is being discussed at User_talk:Materialscientist#Images of stamp but centered on the {{GODL-India}} template talk page: Template talk:GODL-India#Stamps of India. Ww2censor (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Request relating to postage of the Soviet Union

I think that many people would be interested in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Почтовая открытка СССР "С Новым годом", фото Е. Савалова, 1986, лицевая сторона.png. If you have an opinion, please comment. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It is a recurring issue, and I would also love some once-and-forever final resolution from the community. -- Wesha (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Another Hungarian discussion

See this 2015 discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:László Almásy 1995 Hungarian stamp.jpg in previous posts above. Ww2censor (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Page title

There is consensus to move Commons:Stamps/Public domain to Commons:Stamps, including talk pages. Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates will stay where it is, but other subpages will be moved up a level (Commons:Stamps/Public domain/foo will become Commons:Stamps/foo). AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why does this page live at Commons:Stamps/Public domain instead of just Commons:Stamps (like Commons:Currency)? Kaldari (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Kaldari: Because this page contains the discussions about the copyright status of stamps while Commons:Stamps contains the transclusions from the individual country's actual copyright rules pages. Their functions are entirely different Ww2censor (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Unless I'm missing something, Commons:Stamps redirects to Commons:Stamps/Public domain. This seems quite strange as we never redirect primary pages to subpages. Kaldari (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I've officially proposed moving the page. Unfortunately, there isn't a move template for Commons namespace pages, so I had to make one up. Kaldari (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support the move. It seems simpler. I can help with clean-up after. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Keep @Aymatth2 and Kaldari: I have no problem with its current location. Actually it was so long ago I had forgotten why this was the case. Back in 2006 there was no Commons:Stamps page because on the commons we only deal with public domain status of stamps and those appropriate pages were set up. Why would we need a page that refers to nothing specific when a specific name was more appropriate and there was nothing to put there? There was firstly Commons:Stamps/Public domain and a year later was added Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates. There was no need for Commons:Stamps. Only in 2010 was a redirect made which now points to Commons:Stamps/Public domain which is what you are complaining about. So if we now move Commons:Stamps/Public domain to Commons:Stamps where in the filing structure do we put Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates and the talk page Commons talk:Stamps/Public domain. Personally I have no problem with its current locations. I'm against moving it just because something else like Commons:Currency exists so making the comparison makes no sense because there are no other subpages to that topic like we have here. Ww2censor (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• I support the move. I think that its current location has "historical" reasons: There was a time when people here widely assumed that a public domain status for stamps is the norm, and that stamps that are not in the public domain are rather the exception. As it has turned out that things are much more complicated, Commons:Stamps would seem fitting. The page widely discusses stamps that are not public domain at all, so the current title might confuse people who haven't followed the "historical" development. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
•  SupportI think most of the people visiting for COM:STAMP are looking for copyright statuses of stamps, and there's isn't much ambiguity.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
•  Support The current situation is that this is a subpage, and there is no main page. The standard practice is to have a main page, then split subtopics into subpages as needed. Not having a main page deters anyone from creating additional subpages and is confusing in general. The current state is problematic and a move would be beneficial. I see no harm in standardizing this page. If Commons:Stamps is not the right place for this, then I could possibly consider some other top level title, but something like "Commons:Stamps in the Public Domain" seems obviously like it belongs as a subtopic of either a main "stamps" article or a main "public domain" article, and it is a better fit for stamps. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Country transclusion citations don't work

Aymatth2, you will no doubt remember clearly my total disagreement with transcluding the stamp details from the individual country copyright pages to Commons:Stamps/Public domain for several reasons, particularly the difficulty in tracking all the topic changes from all the country pages instead of just one stamp topic page. This means anyone checking stamp copyright edits must watchlist every country page instead of just one topic page. Now I have discovered another issue. In that transclusion, there does not appear to be any way for the citations to transclude to the topic page, so one is again forced to visit another, or even several, pages instead of just one. Is this another reason the opposite transclusion would have been preferable or is there a solution? Ww2censor (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Much has been done since the copyright rules were consolidated into pages for each country including standardization of format, addition of key information such as URAA date, addition of solid references for most content, updates to reflect current laws and translation of most of the consolidated pages (and this page) into several languages. Translation is slightly easier if the detail of the citation is excluded from the text to be translated. This can be done by referring to the citation as e.g. <ref name=abc/>, with the full <ref name=abc> ... </ref> held at the back of the page. This approach also lets the cited source be referenced from several places in the page. The drawback is that the citation is not transcluded to this and similar lists. But since nobody has pointed out the issue for 18 months, it does not seem serious. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Aymatth2 Probably because no one has tried to fix a citation on the topic pages and discovered that they can't fix it. No matter the additional improvements that could also be on the topic pages, every time I try to edit or fix something it frustrates me. I never liked how this implementation was done by you in the first place and still don't. This problem should be annotated everywhere the issue occurs. Ww2censor (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: The consolidation and expansion was widely discussed and agreed before being implemented. Copyright laws often do not explicitly mention stamps, coats of arms, currency, traffic signs etc., but implicitly cover them as government works or individual creations. The COM/CRT pages for Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark etc. give relevant information. It would not be practical to manually maintain the same information here. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it was never fully or widely properly discussed before implementation. It was done the way YOU thought was best and once you had done the work, you refused to consider any other way of doing it when I pointed out the massive major issues of patrolling edits. That has never been resolved because you just don't care. I am well aware of the non-explicit mention of stamps but those mentions are just your usual red herring. Just work out a way of providing the citations on the topic pages instead of mentioning other useless links. Please focus on the issue. It would actually be very easy to maintain the individual country information here. Ww2censor (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Stamps were a small part of the copyright rules consolidation project, and were treated no differently from Currency, DeMin, Tags, ToO and FoP. There are about 50 transclusion lists documented at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Structure#Consolidated lists, created to bridge between the old and new structures. They share the problem of missing some citation details. This is the first time anyone has expressed any concern. You may want to start a discussion at Commons:Village Pump. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Nicaragua again

Hello. According to the entry for Nicaragua on this list it says stamps aren't in the public domain there, but there is PD-NI-exempt which says they are. So can someone who knows how update their entry to reflect it? Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Adamant1, as far as I can see, Template:PD-NI-exempt does not claim they are in the public domain. — Pajz (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Aren't stamps "official symbols" of the state? (I'm pretty sure I was basing it on more then that at the time, but I can't remember what it was now). If they aren't, then there's some Nicaraguan stamps using the template that should probably go to a deletion request. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, stamps are usually considered as means of payment, which are exempted per {{PD-NI-exempt/en}}. Materialscientist (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response. Adamant1, in general, official symbols are coats of arms, national flags, etc. It seems very far-fetched to me to consider a stamp an "official symbol"; at least the interpretation seems to clearly not accord with the ordinary meaning of the term. As for subsuming stamps under the "means of payment" exemption (@Materialscientist), I find that claim somewhat dubious as well. While one sometimes encounters such an argument, I wonder which sample you had in mind when you wrote that this is the "usual" interpretation. By way of (counter-)example, the same line of argument could be (and has been) made for Swiss law, which likewise exempts "means of payment" from protection under copyright law (URG art 5(1) lit b). However, almost all commentators of the law take the position that stamps do not constitute means of payment (eg W Egloff in D Barrelet and W Egloff (eds), Das neue Urheberrecht (4th edn, Stämpfli 2020), art 5 para 5; RM Hilty, Urheberrecht (Stämpfli 2011) para 130; R von Büren and MA Meer in R von Büren and L David (eds), Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (3rd edn, Helbing & Lichtenhahn 2014) para 379 (stating that stamps are "not official means of payment because they have no legal exchange rate and do not have to be accepted for payment"); see also P Gilliéron in J de Werra and P Gilliéron (eds), Propriété intellectuelle (Helbing & Lichtenhahn 2013) Art. 5 LDA para 8 (stating that the term "means of payment" refers to "currency that has an official exchange rate in a given country")). With that being said, I believe any such interpretation would have to be backed by some jurisprudence and/or secondary sources. — Pajz (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Update: After writing the above, I noticed that Template:PD-NI-exempt/en is, it appears, mostly fabricated (see Template talk:PD-NI-exempt); in fact, there is no reference whatsoever to "means of payment" in the law. This was noticed some time ago (discussion), however - apparently - only Template:PD-NI-exempt was changed as a result (diff), but not Template:PD-NI-exempt/en. I guess I'll see if I can get my hands on some instructive literature on Nicaraguan copyright law and then revisit this issue some time later this week ...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pajz (talk • contribs) 13:43, 6 September 2020

There's other countries in the list where stamps are exempt from copyright due to being "means of payment." So, I'd be interested to know why it works in those situations and not this one. At least I'd not consider it a dubious claim to say Nicaraguan stamps should be in the public domain for that reason since there is already precedent for it with other countries that are listed. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Adamant1, because (1) it doesn't comport with the ordinary understanding of the term, (2) it is not backed by reputable sources, (3) there is at least one example on this page where we know that the consensus is exactly the opposite, ie "means of payment" does not include stamps (not sure why you're ignoring that), so there is hardly a basis for such an assumption, but above all: (4) Nicaraguan law does not even say that means of payment are not subject to copyright to begin with, which seems to make the entire discussion of this point a bit otiose. I haven't found the time yet for reviewing the relevant literature. — Pajz (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The entry for Romania says stamps are exempt from copyright due to being a means of payment and the Romanian postal service has uploaded many stamps based on that rational. Which is I was going off of. Obviously I didn't read through every entry or discussion on every country word for word. That said, I did a search for "means of payment" on this talk page and our discussion is the only one that comes up. So, I don't know what discussion your referencing. Although, It's a little ridiculous to act like the Romanian law or their postal service aren't reputable source for copyright. Let alone to treat a discussion on this talk page as legally authoritative. Those things aside, I wasn't ignoring anything. Last time I checked this is a discussion. So I thought id ask. I don't see what's obtuse about any of that and I don't appreciate my curiosity or pointing out the example of Romania being characterized that way. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to search the whole page, I specifically gave you the counterexample of Switzland in my response above; that's the only reason I was surprised you didn't consider it and just went on to repeat that "means of payment" includes stamps. Generally, I really do not understand your line of argument in the slightest. If in some country the law says "means of payment" are exempt from copyright and the pravailing view is that this includes stamps, so what? That doesn't mean that is the correct interpretation in other countries. The answer can be different under different legal regimes, that's the only point I was making. And that is why we need reputable sources rather than mere speculation. — Pajz (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic

The information about copyright status of stamps of Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic is copied from the discussion in cs.wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Л.П. Джепко (talk • contribs) 09:04, 29 October 2008

Greece (4th of August Regime)

I have a question about copyright status of the stamp, issued by the 4th of August Regime (1936–1941). It contains an official emblem of this regime and emblem of the National Youth Organisation.

Is it OK to upload this stamp to Commons?

Stamp is here.

Also here, and here (lower left corner of the image).