Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/India

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Section 17(b) in the Copyright Act, 1957[edit]

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1395679/

Section 17(b) in the Copyright Act, 1957
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), in the case of a photograph taken, or a painting or portrait drawn, or an engraving or a cinematograph film made, for valuable consideration at the instance of any person, such person shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein;

Old photos[edit]

@Clindberg and Aymatth2: According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/India#Durations "Photographs were formerly protected for 50 years after creation (for creation before 1958)..." and we have {{PD-India-photo-1958}} for those photos.

The URAA date is 1 January 1996 so all photos created before 1 January 1946 are in the public domain in the United States.

Does that look right? --MGA73 (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1941 (as mentioned by the small print of the tag you mention). The extension from 50 to 60 years happened effective 1991. It's a question whether photographs before 1941 were changed to 60 years from publication by the 1991 law. That was clearly the intent, or at least change them to 60 years from creation. The 1957 law changed from 50 years from creation to 50 years from publication, but did not change the term of existing photos. The 1991 law clearly intended to extend all terms by 10 years, though did not explicitly address photographic works -- it's quite possible that existing photos were changed to 60 years from publication at that time, which would make 1958 incorrect (rather creation before 1941 for India too). I thought that is the way we had been interpreting things. But that tag is interpreting the 1991 change as extending older photos to 60 years from creation, I guess. The 1991 law simply changed all "50 years" to "60 years". The 1957 law just said that photographs were changed to 50 years from publication, as opposed to creation. It was very subtle though how they kept existing photos at 50 years from creation -- it was in the transitional rules and did not address photographs directly, but only applied new *term* changes to works created from that date forward. Photographs were the only type of work which had their term changed at all, so that was effectively only applicable to photographs, at the time. That subtlety was probably missed by the drafters of the 1991 amendment, because if the same wording is applied to that change, then they did not extend any existing works to 60 years, when that was clearly their intent. Given the intent, we assume that all existing works were extended at that time. The 2012 law removed the special term for photographs, so again it's possible that photos published before 1952 is now India's line (with 1952 and later photos being extended to 60pma), or (using the logic in the 1957 law) maybe that only applies to photographs created from 2012 onwards. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: I should have known that it is never simple. I think we should follow the wording of the laws unless we have some verdict saying that the law is wrong. When photos are PD in India today our "only problem" is to figure out if the photo is covered by URAA. That would in my opinion reduce the legal risk to an acceptable minimum. It is not like we know for sure that the photos are protected we only know that there is a (small) risk if... if... if... (so to me its the same as {{PD-old-assumed}} where we accept a small risk).
Up to 1991 all photos before 1958 were protected for 50 years from creation meaning that all photos created before 1941 was PD.
So unless we have a clear indication that photos that were in PD was changed to be protected again I think we should assume that the law only affects files that was still copyrighted.
I agree that photos after 1941 are much more unsure because of the change to 60 yrs so there we would conflict with the URAA date. --MGA73 (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The laws are definitely not retroactive in that sense; once PD a work has always stayed PD, in India. The main question is if the new terms apply to all existing works when the law change was made (most common), or if it only applies to new works created from that point forward (which happens sometimes, like the U.S. in 1978). The 1957 change was the latter, matching how the British had just made the same adjustment to photographs, and that remains the actual transitional wording in the law (which applies the *scope* of copyright to all existing works, but leaves existing copyright lengths unchanged, which was somewhat confirmed by a court case in the 1970s I think). But the 1991 change was clearly intended to be the former. No idea about the 2012 change. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: Since I'm not a native English speaker there may be some things I miss in communication. So to be sure that I understand you correct: Do you agree that all photos from before 1941 are PD? Or am I missing something? --MGA73 (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Photos created before 1941 are fine, both in India, and for the URAA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following a discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/File:George M. Moraes.jpg I would like to try to sum up some info about the changes and where to find them:

1911 law / 1914 law

1957 law

1991 amendment

2012 amendment

So:

  • in 1958 when 1957 law went into effect everything created before 1908 was PD
  • in 1991 when 1991 amendment went into effect everything published before 1941 was PD
  • in 2012 when 2012 amendment went into effect everything published before 1952 was PD

The question is what if something was created before 1941 or 1952 but not published?

Feel free to comment or correct if I missed anything. --MGA73 (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The transitional clauses of the 1957/8 law were a bit subtle -- Article 79(3) states that the law is not retroactive, Article 79(4) states that the *scope* of copyrights going forward is governed by the new law (so existing authors get any new rights listed in Article 14), but does *not* apply the new terms of copyright to older works (which are in articles other than the 14th, and only article 14 was applied to older works). Article 79(5) reinforces that, by saying any other rights in existing works last as long as the term in the older law. Thus, the effect seems similar to the UK Copyright Act 1956, which explicitly stated that existing photographs still have the term based on creation, and photographs created from June 1957 and on have a term based on publication instead (which all got superseded by the retroactive EU changes in 1996 of course). Thus, Indian photos before 1958 continued to have a copyright term based on creation. Photos were the only item to have its term changed in the 1957 law, so the distinction really only applies to them. The uncertainty is if the same logic should be applied to the 1991 and 2012 changes, since that was definitely not the intent in 1991 (rather the goal was to extend older works), and perhaps not in 2012. This is mentioned at Template talk:PD-India#Before_1958, and the linked editorial (which mentions a 1977 court case seemingly confirming that interpretation of the 1957 transitional clause) is now archived here. I think it's safer to assume that the 1991 change did in fact extend the terms of existing works from 50 to 60 years, since the intent was to keep copyright longer for older works, even though that editorial argues otherwise, as it is still "widely assumed" and not sure I've seen a court case decision on that matter. I don't think the 1991 or 2012 changes had transitional clauses as part of those laws, which would have clarified things -- often the transitional provisions only really apply to the law change being made at that time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stamps[edit]

The guideline says "stamps are now covered under GODL-India. In addition, all Indian stamps older than 60 years are in the public domain" and then it links to two Wikipedia discussions as evidence to why that's the case. But from what I can tell neither discussion seems to say they covered under the GODL-India or are otherwise in the public domain. In fact the multiple people in the first discussion say images of Indian stamps can only be used in fair use cases, which Commons doesn't allow for. Also in the second discussion someone quotes from Indian law which apparently says "re-production of stamps is allowed for illustration purposes in Philatelic Publication or in an article relating wholly on postage stamps which may appear in any magazine, newspaper or publication of a general character. Such reproduction should however, be only in black."

Images of stamps only being usable for "illustration purposes in Philatelic Publication or in an article" clearly isn't compatible with Commons' "for any purpose" clause. Nor are most of the images of stamps of India hosted by Commons currently in black and white. I can't find any evidence that the law has changed since the original discussions in Wikipedia either. So the article probably needs to be changed to reflect what the law actually says. That is unless someone can provide evidence that stamps are covered under GODL-India and can be reproduced in color for any purpose. At least going by the discussions and the quote from the law it seems like images of them aren't OK to host on Commons though. At least not as is. Although I'd like there to be a discussion about it beforehand if the guideline is going to be changed. Adamant1 (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory/India&oldid=766933598"