Category talk:PD-exUSSR-exempt license tags

Archives Categories for discussion (08/2013)

No court or law in the US or in the UK has ever recognized Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania as legal entities of the USSR, therefore why exactly are these countries covered with PD-exUSSR-exempt license tags? Thanks!--Terker 21:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. Please see Buxhoeveden v. Estonian State Bank or The US policy toward the Baltic States for ref. Thanks!--Terker 22:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This category is not for legal successor of USSR and/or its 15 republics. Only Russian Federation is USSR (union level) legal successor (RF is also RSFSR legal successor), the 11 other republics (with the exception of Baltic States) are legal successor of respective soviet republics, not of USSR (union level). These theses were clearly wrtitten in some updated PD-exUSSR-exempt license tags (See Template:PD-BY-exempt, Template:PD-RU-exempt, Template:PD-TJ-exempt).

This category is for PD-exempt tags from ex-USSR states, ...because Laws on copyrights in this states are very similar at the cases: which works are(or not) the subject of copyright? Alex Spade 09:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

because Laws on copyrights in this states are very similar? Seems very outdated if it ever was the case. The 3 Baltic states are members of the EU and if anything than the 3 copyright laws are similar if not identical to the EU. Should anything be done to sort it out?--Terker 09:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not. Plz, don't mix PD-because-uncopyrighted and PD-because-old. This category is for first case, not for second. Because Laws on copyrights in this states are very similar with definition of works, which are not the subject of the copyrights. These license tags tells about starus of official symbols (and some other works), not about old works. There are the similar license tags in Germany, Czechia, which are also EU-members.

So, do you have information, that official symbols are copyrighted in Baltic States? If you don't, these tags willn't be excluded from this category. Alex Spade 11:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you must have misunderstood what this is all about. No official symbols are copyrighted anywhere in the world. And it's first of all about that no court or law in the US or UK has ever considered the Baltic states as legal entities of the USSR or exUSSR. Secondly it's about what's on PD that's published in the Baltic states between lets say 1940-1991. There is a conflict between Template:PD-EE or just PD-OLD and Template:PD-Russia. The latter claims that everything published by the Soviet legal entities,(which the soviet Baltic republics were in the eyes of the SU, no matter that the legal systems in the US and EU don't recognize this,) up to January 1, 1954 is PD. Thats not the case according to for-ex the copyright law available at Template:PD-EE, meaning it uses the standard 70 year mark like the EU and the US. So thats what I'd also like to get sorted out. --Terker 18:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I clearly understand what I'm taking about. And you still mix the two conception and have did some new mistakes. You are talking about PD-because-old: PD-old and PD-Russia are examples of this conception, and PD-Russia isn't included in discussed category - this category is for PD-because-uncopyrighted. This category doesn't said anything about works, which were in the Baltic states between lets say 1940-1991. For such conception it have been planned still non-established category PD-exUSSR - you are talking about it, not about PD-exUSSR-exempt.

You said No official symbols are copyrighted anywhere in the world - you are wrong. Official symbols are uncopyrighted in many states (ex-USSR, China, East Europe, Germany, USA), but not at all. In many states (Turkey, Izrael and others) they are copyrighted or partial copyrigted (for example in Belarus COAs of cities are copyrighted).

You said some words about PD-Russia. The respective tag is intended for works, which was publicated in Russian Empire, Soviet Russia and RSFSR. It is not covered the cases, then works were publicated in Baltic States between 1917-1940 (independent states) and between 1940-1991 (soviet republics) or in other 11 soviet republics.

The correct decision is next. Create Template:PD-Estonia and redirect it to {{PD-old}}. Ask the Commons-bots to retag the images with {{PD-EE}} to {{PD-EE-exempt}} and after redirect Template:PD-EE to {{PD-old}}. Alex Spade 06:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We're not communicating too well here. Perhaps it's me , I'm not making it clear enough. (Although it was interesting fact to know that Turkey and Israel have copyrighted their official symbols.) so lets take one thing at the time, it's not about PD OLD or PD exempt here or the differences between those. but it's first of all about that the Template:PD-EE-exempt, Template:PD-LT-exempt and Template:PD-LV-exempt are categorized under PD-exUSSR-exempt which doesn't make any sense since the countries have not been legally part of the USSR according to the courts and laws in the US and UK. Since this is an English web page, perhaps it should follow the common practice, please see the refs above and these Templates should be excluded from PD-exUSSR-exempt and kept where they belong at Category:PD-EUGov_license_tags. Thanks!--Terker 08:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Were Estonia, Litva, Latvia in USSR between 1940-1991? Yes, they were. This category is very usefull for Ru-Wiki-Community, then it is writing articles about USSR and ex-USSR space (for example about cities and towns). These tags must stay in this category. Do you want to add another? What's the problem? Add, nobody prevents to you, but don't prevent others. The current category isn't mistake. In other words, this category is rather for geographical successors of USSR, than for legal successors. Alex Spade 09:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Were Estonia, Lithuania Latvia in USSR between 1940-1991? de facto yes, de jure no, according to the legal systems in the US and UK. That's what this is all about. The Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR, Lithuanian SSR or their governments between 1940-1991 were not recognized legally by the US or UK, the English speaking countries. That's why there was a ref up there Buxhoeveden v. Estonian State Bank etc. in case anybody is not familiar with the nuance. Now, since Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania have never been recognized by the courts or laws of the US, UK as legally part of the USSR , these license tags cowering the copyright laws should not be included with Category:PD-exUSSR-exempt. The thing that the inclusion might be very useful for Ru-Wiki-Community is understandable but it can't be a reason for, including the only legal representatives of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the consulates in New York between 1940-1991 in a category PD-exUSSR.

Everything that has to do with PD-EE,LV,LT-exempt etc. between 1940-1991 has been issued by the Baltic consulates in US, Not in the Estonian SSR, or Latvian, Lithuanina SSR meaning in the category PD-exUSSR-exempt. If anything, new templates should be made for "Estonian SSR-exempt, Lithuanian SSR-exempt Latvian SSR-exempt in USSR between 1940-1991" that would cover the PD according to the exSoviet laws. PD-EE-exempt, PD-LV-exempt, PD-LT-exempt are exempt tags for Republic of Estonia, Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania that were legally represented in the eyes of the English speaking legal systems by the consulates in New York between 1940-1991. Once more, please see the refs and relevant cases. Hope that this was clear enough?--Terker 19:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. other than refs up there, an example of a public statements that are covered with PD-EE-exempt and PD-LT-exempt, and are not PD-exUSSR-exempt in any way, please see for example the the statements of Estonian and Latvian consuls in Nasa press release in 1969. Please let me know if more refs or examples are needed to clarify what I'm talking about. Thanks--Terker 19:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't make the conclusion about understanding/misunderstanding of something in Ru-Wiki. The Ru-Wiki-Community understand the situation enough.

I repeat, this category is rather for geographical successors of USSR (see article w:Post-Soviet states), than for legal successors. If you want to change this situation - go to En-Wiki or some other leading Wiki and change the situation there.

The Estonian SSR-exempt, Lithuanian SSR-exempt and Latvian SSR-exempt couldn't be created. There weren't exempt section in law of respective republics. Nobody wants to add the comment According to interstate and international compacts <...> is the legal successor of the <...> SSR, therefore this license tag is also applicable to official symbols and formal documents of the <...> to PD-EE/LT/LV-exempt - this comment is planned only for other 12 license tags. For respective 3 republics it's planned the special license tag with very specific text, which is still formulating. Alex Spade 20:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's my turn to get confused. First of all, aren't we talking at wiki commons? and as far as I can see this is as "En-Wiki" as it can get. so I have no idea what this "Ru-Wiki" and "go to En-Wiki" is all about. The second and most important, the copyright laws relevant to the templates have nothing to do with Geography or geographical successors . It's all about what applies according to any copyright laws meaning it has everything to do with legal jurisdictions and legal successors. the fact is the PD-EE, PD-LV PD-LT have never been covered by the legal jurisdiction of the Soviet Union and therefore these should not be included in the category here. For anything published in the Baltic territories between 1940-1941; 1944-1991 the soviet or Template:PD-Russia should apply in case separate soviet era Baltic templates are not needed to cover the PD-exempt "geographically" during 1940-1991.--Terker 20:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC) PS. even if it would have anything to do with geographical successors, the only legal representatives of the Baltic republics in the eyes of the legal system in the US that covers the PD-EE-LV-LT-exempt regards 1940-1991 were geographically in New York, USA.--Terker 20:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You said, that we didn't understand one another. - Fine. So just prove your POV in more large discussion (in number of disputants). Before respective moment the discussed license tags stay in this category, as current status quo (fixation). Alex Spade 21:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If you don't like the current name of category - offer another uniting name for 15 w:Post-Soviet states-exempt license tags. Alex Spade 22:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not about what I like or don't like. And there is no need to unite the 15 "Post-Soviet states" as only the 3 have have parallel legal jurisdictions during 1940-1991 and the current PD-EE-LV-LT templates regarding state insignia etc. cover the Baltic Republics established in 1920-s, that were represented by the consulates in NY during the period 1940-1991 unlike the other countries that were established after 1991. Perhaps the current Baltic exempt templates should be renamed , the renamed ones would cover everything related thats been published in the countries from about 1920-1940, by the consulates from 1940-1991 and then by the Republics again from 1991 on. The naming conventions PD-EE-LV-LT would become to cover everything that's been published in the Soviet Estonia, Latvia , Lithuania between 1940-1941; 1944-1991? Any suggestions welcome to sort this out. And definitely, if you feel the thing should be taken into a larger discussion we should do so. Thanks!--Terker 22:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)