File talk:Stamp of Moldova 012.jpg

  I also found the following link to Moldova currency in Wiki Commons. ::File:Moldawischer-Leu-01.jpg The tags show questionable usage of the currency images which is similar to the practices that are occurring on use of the stamps from that country. All should be speedy deleted.Atsme (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Moldova's copyright law explicitly excludes banknotes from copyright. You are fundamentally mistaken. And yes, stamps may be similar to currency, so you may well also be mistaken about those. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Carl - I beg to differ, especially considering the tag under the image ::File:Moldawischer-Leu-01.jpg at Wiki Commons states: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. How can it be both non-free and free?? Further, the stamp is not a bank note. It was issued by the Moldova Postal Service which does carry restrictions as does the U.S. Postal Service. Nothing has been provided to date to indicate the use of the stamp is free. Assumptions are not acceptable under Wiki's free use policy. I also found the original stamp issue at the NOAA library where it is classified as non-free, so again, how can you say a non-free derivative can be classified as free use? The fact that it raises question with regards to legality should be reason enough for its deletion. I'll move it to regular deletion for further review. Thank you.166.128.110.232 18:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In Moldova, yes, the CC license would not be valid. Same for the U.S., as well. In some other countries, maybe, if they allow a separate copyright on scans. I'm not sure there are any such countries, as it is more of a copy to me, but who knows -- keeping the CC license may help in those situations, but we should definitely add the PD-MD tag (which was done). Since copyright does differ by country, some things are not copyrightable in some, but are in others (meaning a license is required for usage in those latter countries, but not the former ones). The copyright situation in the country of origin however is pretty clear in this case. And as you say above, stamps are very similar to banknotes, and the law also explicitly has an "etc." in its list of non-protected items, so stamps may well come under that -- they have been listed that way here for some time, so a wider discussion would be required before we delete any stamps based on that. Secondly, the stamp situation is not the same as the U.S. -- per the Moldovan postal law, stamps are officially issued by the Ministry of Communication, and only used by the Posta Moldovei (a state enterprise, but a separate entity) -- the government explicity retains the right to contract with other, private postal services, but also mandates by law that the official stamps are the only ones allowed to be used by any postal service. The state enterprise company therefore does not control the copyrights on the stamps, as they neither produce them nor control their circulation. The subjects of the stamps are also somewhat regulated by that law. While I would prefer an explicit statement by the Moldovan government somewhere on the stamps' copyright status, they are in fact officially issued by the government alone (and can be withdrawn from circulation), and are a form of currency in a way, so the similarities with banknotes are pretty strong and it is very much possible that they do come under the same clause in the copyright law (which is not an exhaustive list, but just gives examples). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijani stamp

Users:Atsme has claimed this is a derivative of an image seen on this page. It is not. First, that is an entirely different stamp, from Azerbaijan. It depicts the same type of fish, but that is all. The two underling drawings or paintings are not derivative works of each other; they are completely independent copyrights (if such copyright exists). Furthermore, the CC-BY-NC license on that page refers only to that specific photograph -- that person has no authorship rights on the underlying stamp drawing at all. This file is obviously not taken from that photograph, so that license is utterly irrelevant. So, I reverted that change. There is some question on whether the Moldovan stamp is PD, but (per above) there are pretty strong indications that it is. The question for this is purely that situation under Moldovan law, and perhaps the image itself, which came from the Moldovan website, and was not photographed by anyone here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Something to consider even if it isn't a derivative work, the face of the stamp displays artwork. Considering most stamp issues are copyrighted, especially those with original photos, artwork, etc., Art. 6 in Moldova's Copyright Laws would be a safer assumption than trying to fit it under Creations Not Protected in Art. 7. -(1) State emblems and official signs. It is not a State emblem, or an official sign. It is a stamp containing an artist's rendition of a sturgeon. I located the following copyright information in a PDF which specifically references artwork, drawings, sketches, paintings, and photographs:
LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ON COPYRIGHT AND NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS, no. 293-XIII of November 23, 1994 (Amended by Law no. 1268-XV, of July 25, 2002)
Art. 6. –(1) Copyright shall extend to literary, artistic and scientific works expressed in the following forms:
(a) written form (manuscript, typewritten text, musical score, etc.);
(b) oral form (public recitation, public performance, etc.);
(c) audio or video recording (mechanical, magnetic, digital, optical, etc.);
(d) figurative form (drawing, sketch, painting, plan, industrial design, still from a cinematographic film or television or video film, photograph, etc.);
(e) three-dimensional form (sculpture, model, mock-up, structure, etc.);
(f) any other form, known or as yet unknown.
Atsme (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The stamp definitely displays artwork, which is normally easily copyrightable, as you say. The Azerbaijan one would also normally be copyrightable, except they have the same terms in their copyright law (many of the former Soviet SSRs do). However, state symbols like seals, and banknotes, generally have artwork as well, but those have a special official status and are not protected by copyright despite the fact they are artistic -- that overrides the Article 6 that you mention. Not every country does that, but quite a few do, and Moldova is one. Many more countries make the text of laws uncopyrightable, when otherwise they would clearly qualify for a literary copyright -- same idea. The Moldova law specifically mentions banknotes and similar official items as being unprotected by copyright, and it's not a big stretch to take that to stamps. Stamps change more often than banknotes though, and it's possible a privately copyrighted artwork would be used, but in general there is solid backing for using the license. If you want to contact someone in the Moldovan government to ask a clarifying question, that may help. But even the terms of use on the Posta Moldovei site for items they do own the copyright to are pretty liberal; derivative works are the only possible problem with that being considered a "free" license on its own. But stamp copyrights, if they are copyrightable, are held by the government and not that organization, per their law. If you want to bring this up at the Village Pump, or perhaps Commons talk:Stamps/Public domain would be more targeted, by all means go ahead, but really it comes down to if the stamps fall under that clause of the copyright law or not. General practice around here seems to have been to think it does, along with all the other countries with the same clause in their law, so that seems to represent community opinion on the matter. Look particularly at the existing discussions on the Commons talk:Stamps/Public domain page, especially the ones for the former Soviet countries like the Ukraine and Belarus, which have similar clauses in their copyright law, as we will often assume that a similar state of affairs exists with all countries which have clauses like that in the law. This has been considered before, not by me, but in looking at things more in-depth since you've brought it up, I find myself agreeing with the current situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I can finally clear the air once and for all - I sent a copy of the :File:Stamp of Moldova 012.jpg with the following question: Can you please tell me if the following stamp is free use, or are there copyright restrictions on the artwork? I received an email from Posta Moldova stating the following: is understood there exists the copyright. This image is once again a candidate for speedy deletion with no need for further discussion. However, now that we finally have a reply from Posta Moldova which I will be happy to provide, other Moldova stamp images may be in copyright violation, and the current template currently being used for the violating stamps is incorrect. I would think only those stamps issued after Moldova became a Republic, and joined the UPU. It makes perfect sense considering Moldova's push in philatelic exhibitions, and the opening of their philatelic store on March, 2004. The following links should help explain their trend and rationale in copyrighting their stamp issues - Posta news Excerpt: On 16 November 1992, the Republic of Moldova joined the Universal Postal Union, as with other Member States forming a single postal territory. Since then, it actively participates in meetings and seminars organized by them, aimed at improving the quality of postal services provided at national and international levels. Also see Philatelic Exhibition Republic of Moldova - Posta Moldovei - History Of Post - Post In Moldova - paragraph 7 - On 23 June 2001, for the first time in Moldova, was organized International Philatelic Exhibition Republic of Moldova-Romania “Aripi peste Prut”. Another remarkable date in this domain is the opening of philatelic store in March, 2004. Atsme (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

It's a change in policy if true, so this most definitely needs a regular deletion request and is not speedy. Speedy is for uncontroversial requests; if anyone really objects for any reason then it goes to a regular DR for wider discussion. Those provide a much better record for future reference as well. It would be good if you could post the actual text of the reply (in the native language). Joining the UPU would have no bearing on the copyright status -- their law has not changed in this area, so either stamps have always been copyrighted there, or they still aren't (and someone at the Posta Moldova made a mistake, which is always possible too). Posta Moldova still does not issue stamps, so it would not own the copyright anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful input, Carl. It doesn't matter if Posta Moldova is the issuer because they have Neighboring Rights. I respectfully disagree with regards to the UPU having no bearing on copyright status for the following reasons:
Moldova Postal Law - Article 7. - (1) Postal activity is conducted as provided by the present law, the applicable normative acts and to the international conventions and agreements ratified by the Republic of Moldova as a member of the Universal Postal Union. (2) In case the international conventions and agreements, to which the Republic of Moldova is a party, contain other provisions than the ones stipulated by the legislation of the Republic of Moldova, the provisions of the international conventions and agreements shall prevail.
UPU's Standards Board Intellectual Property Rights Policy reads: The work of the Standards Board requires the exchange of ideas and concepts that may be protected by intellectual property rights such as patents, trade marks or trade names, or copyrights. Equally, it may involve the expression of new ideas that are not currently protected. To protect those with rights, as well as those who may not be aware of them, and to prevent unintended abuse of confidential idea exchange, it is important that an intellectual rights policy exist. The Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) policy applies to the UPU Standards Board, its permanent and ad-hoc working groups, the individuals and representatives participating in them and any ad hoc participants/consultants to the UPU Standards Board or its working groups. It applies to all types of IPR including intellectual property rights enshrined in common law, registered/applied for patents, copyright, trademarks and trade names. This policy applies to all UPU standards with an approval date after its publication on the UPU's website. For standards existing prior to that date, it shall be applied as from the date on which the standard concerned is next updated.
We can't be sure as to how far UPU reaches with regards to stamps, but I wouldn't rule out anything, especially when it comes to the international philatelic exhibits and conventions. We already know copyright symbols and registration are not mandatory to own a copyright which makes it a lot more feasible for the Moldova Ministry to claim copyrights on all of their stamp issues beginning with the day Moldova became a Republic. See the other rationale statements I provided above with regards to artwork. Add to that, Moldova's economic situation, and knowing their stamps are income earners, especially in the philatelic arena, I seriously doubt the Republic is going to give away their intellectual property rights. The email I received from Posta Moldova validates my thinking. Regardless, I'd rather err on the side of safety by nominating for a speedy delete than risk potential copyright violations. Atsme (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

Neighboring rights have no bearing on this issue. Copyright belongs to the authors of a work, which for these stamps would not be the Posta Moldova, since they don't issue them. That also has no bearing on whether the copyright exists or not -- the government ministry can be the author. As for the UPU bit, that is merely talking about the materials they produce -- i.e. where they are the author. Of course they would own the copyright in that stuff, but anything they don't author (which would include stamps), they have no control over. That statement is simply an author making their own copyright statement, on the text of the standards authored by that organization. Nothing more (read it more closely). It has no bearing on the stamps of any country, nor any other work not authored by that organization. If that group required a law change to sign the treaty, it would have showed up in a modification to Moldova's law, which was not altered in this area. You may be right on the sales of stamps, although arguably the law also makes clear that only the government has the power to issue them, so copying them elsewhere may be a form of counterfeiting, protected under non-copyright laws. The country could sell items related to the design of their banknotes as well; that did not prevent them from excluding those designs from copyright protection. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite simply, the lady who responded to my email did so as a representative of Posta Moldova. They may not issue the stamps, but they do handle the sale and distribution of them, collect monies, plan international philatelic exhibits and conventions, work with UPU, etc. and as such should know whether or not their stamps are copyrighted. When I emailed the query, I attached an image of the stamp, and asked straight out if it was copyrighted, or free to use. She said it is copyrighted. I find her answer a great deal more reliable than that of a layperson attempting to interpret Moldova Law. Another common sense approach would be to review the Posta Moldova online store, Postal stationery and philately, where you'll see the stamp in question along with many others available for sale. You will also see a copyright notation in the bottom left corner of the page that reads © 2007 "Poşta Moldovei" Rechizite | Legătură. That alone speaks volumes as far as I'm concerned. Atsme (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You are quite possibly right on the main issue -- they may well have a better idea. Did your email contain a reference to the clause of the Moldova copyright law, asking specifically if it was included or not, making sure they were aware of that clause before they answered? Stamps have a monetary value though just like currency, not really based on the artistic expression, and that is what sales are based on. There is explicitly no copyright in banknotes, so it does not necessarily follow that copyright is essential for stamps. None of the other activities would be precluded by lack of copyright either. Also, the copyright notice is a general one for the website, and indicates Posta Moldovei authorship, which at the very least is not true for the stamps. The copyright owner would be someone different. It does not necessarily indicate copyrightability of the stamps, as there is plenty of other website material which is obviously authored and copyrighted by that organization. There does seem to be a solid chance that they are copyrighted, but the best answer would be from someone from Moldova who also has an understanding of that clause of their copyright law, and can properly interpret it with regard to stamps. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't mention it because the clause you're referring to is under the heading, Creations Not Protected by Copyright, paragraph (1). If you'll go one step further, and read paragraph (2) under that same clause you'll understand why I didn't bring it up...The mode of expression rather than ideas, processes, functioning methods or mathematical concepts as such shall be protected by copyright.. I believe it's fair to say the combination of paragraph (2) and the fact Posta Moldova says the image is copyrighted satisfies the requirements for nonfree. Atsme (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't change anything... that basically confirms that ideas are not copyrightable, just their expression. Yes, this sort of graphic is normally also copyrightable, but that does not change the fact later in their own law they make several exceptions for special items which would normally be copyrightable under the above definitions but are not due to their special status. The text of laws are not copyrightable, nor are banknotes. Extending that to stamps is reasonable but not explicitly stated (I think), and it may not hold -- the letter from the Posta Moldova (who may very well have not been truly versed in copyright -- I cannot see the response) is the main evidence against at this point. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Carl, I admire your tenacity, but I think the following information is going to wrap up this discussion rather quickly. Let's go back to what I tried to explain to you above regarding the UPU, and the protection of intellectual property rights, copyrights, UPU's agreement with participating countries, etc. I may have jumped the gun and grabbed the wrong excerpt above, but the gist of what I was trying to get across was still there. This time I'll just include the links so you can read everything firsthand starting with the website of the UPU, UPU's list of member countries, the copyright notice, Philately, the WNS which is extremely important, list of participating countries and their respective registered stamps, all of which are protected by copyright per each countries' agreement with UPU, the latter of which the majority of participating countries have allowed to take precedent over their own laws and policies. This information is definitely going to create a stir because it not only affects :File:Stamp_of_Moldova_012.jpg, it's going to affect a large number of stamp images currently being displayed in Wiki Commons. I'm going to post the links at the deletion request discussion page. Atsme (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Please point out the requirement to copyright stamps. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It is best to contact the issuing postal authorities as I did for Moldova. Long and short of it, the copyright restrictions could easily be considered in effect by circular reference if nothing else. You could start with the copyright notice on the UPU website which by its very nature includes various stamp images for the registered countries. The notice states: Copyright ©2010 Universal Postal Union - All rights reserved.
1. None of the materials provided on this website may be used, reproduced or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or the use of any information storage and retrieval system, except as provided for in this website (see the "Disclaimer" section), without permission in writing from the UPU or the publisher concerned. 2. Access to databases of the UPU for consultation of documents and/or information retrieval is permitted by the UPU subject to the user's acceptance of UPU's provisions and conditions of copyright contained within each document which obliges the user not to duplicate the document or parts thereof for distribution or sale external to the user's organization. Without prejudice to the foregoing obligations, such information may be utilised in the receiving organization, as required, to further the work of the UPU, to provide guidance for product or service development and implementation and to serve as support documentation associated with a product or service.
The law specific to Moldova reads: LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA POST, LAW NR. 463-XIII dated 18.05.95 Monitorul Oficial of the Republic of Moldova NR. 65-66/711 dated 24.11.1995 - Article 7. - (1) Postal activity is conducted as provided by the present law, the applicable normative acts and to the international conventions and agreements ratified by the Republic of Moldova as a member of the Universal Postal Union. (2) In case the international conventions and agreements, to which the Republic of Moldova is a party, contain other provisions than the ones stipulated by the legislation of the Republic of Moldova, the provisions of the international conventions and agreements shall prevail.
Furthermore, if you'll look at the UPU Philatelic Standards, you'll see that many of the issuers of the collectible stamps at the Philatelic site have trademarked and coded their stamps to help identify them and prevent bogus duplication, forgery, etc. International trademarks may have more merit as protection than a registered copyright. It becomes a very tangled web of protection. Atsme (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
And Carl, let's keep our discussion on the nomination page from here on out. It's easier than having to post the same Q and A twice. Thank you. Atsme (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)