Template talk:PD-1996-text

Translation (of untranslated sentence) for the Dutch (Netherlands) language

English:

• it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States,

Dutch (Netherlands):

• het werd voor het eerst gepubliceerd vóór 1 maart 1989 zonder vermelding van auteursrechten of vóór 1964 zonder vernieuwing van auteursrechten of vóórdat het land van oorsprong auteursrechtelijke banden is gaan onderhouden met de Verenigde Staten,

Regards, --oSeveno (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your contribution. —RP88 (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Ambiguous: "Source country" of the work? Meaning the creative work OR the uploaded file?

The sentence part „or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States” speaks of the “source country”, but shouldn't it speak of the “country of first publication”? Since this template opens with: “This work...”, the text should relate to the work, not the uploaded file. And copyright laws and treaties speak of “country of first publication”. Unless “the work” only relates to the uploaded file, in which case the template text has an entirely wrong formulation. The template text should clearly differentiate in the use and meaning of the words “work” and “file”, within the scope of this template. And it should consider where and in what context the template is being used. On Commons “source” (at the file description) would normally apply to the “the source of the file being uploaded”. If the template only refers to the uploaded file, then “This uploaded work...” would be a better wording. But that would conflict with the entire template text, which is referring to laws and treaties. Those use the wording “the work” exclusively in relation to the authors rights. --oSeveno (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The use of both the "first published outside the United States" and "source county" phrasing in this summary comes directly from Hirtle's Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States chart. The difference is actually present in U.S. copyright law, 17 U.S. Code § 104A, enacted by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. While the law restored copyright protection to some works first published outside the U.S., under the law the source country is usually, but not always, the country of first publication. Per 17 USC § 104A(h)(8) it is:

The “source country” of a restored work is— (A) a nation other than the United States; (B) in the case of an unpublished work— (i) the eligible country in which the author or rightholder is a national or domiciliary, or, if a restored work has more than 1 author or rightholder, of which the majority of foreign authors or rightholders are nationals or domiciliaries; or (ii) if the majority of authors or rightholders are not foreign, the nation other than the United States which has the most significant contacts with the work; and (C) in the case of a published work— (i) the eligible country in which the work is first published, or (ii) if the restored work is published on the same day in 2 or more eligible countries, the eligible country which has the most significant contacts with the work.

The Berne convention has a similar concept, called "country of origin", which is also usually, but not always, the country of first publication. Per Article 5 (4) of the Berne Convention:

The country of origin shall be considered to be (a) in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country; in the case of works published simultaneously in several countries of the Union which grant different terms of protection, the country whose legislation grants the shortest term of protection; (b) in the case of works published simultaneously in a country outside the Union and in a country of the Union, the latter country; (c) in the case of unpublished works or of works first published in a country outside the Union, without simultaneous publication in a country of the Union, the country of the Union of which the author is a national, provided that: (i) when these are cinematographic works the maker of which has his headquarters or his habitual residence in a country of the Union, the country of origin shall be that country, and (ii) when these are works of architecture erected in a country of the Union or other artistic works incorporated in a building or other structure located in a country of the Union, the country of origin shall be that country.

—RP88 (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@RP88: Thank you for your explanation on this subject. Digging into the archived topics didn't provide me with sufficient answers. An other question I have is on the subject of (semi) anonymous 2D works: Is Template:PD-anon-70-EU a sufficient license on Commons? Some think PD-anon-70-EU should be sufficient. Others seem to think it requires an additional US PD license. Since the text of the PD-anon-70-EU template doesn't mention any requirement for an additional license, one would assume there is no need for it. What is your opinion? Do you know of any publication where this matter has been discussed? Also, you mention the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, an US law. I had read about that, but it seems it is in violation of the Berne Convention, since the copyright restorations often causes a longer protection period than in the country of origin. And there is a huge difference between 70 years or 120 years of copyright protection. Are there consequences following that law for (semi) anonymous 2D works in regard to PD-anon-70-EU? And, since the only place we can verify the existence of a PD status would be the United States Copyright Office, which online database only starts at the year 1970, is it expected from uploaders that they spend $ 300,- for each image, to have them verify possible rights manually?

Also, after reading an article by Prof. Jane C. Ginsburg of the Columbia University School of Law, dating from October 20, 2009, I wonder about the following: There are many works on Commons that are being published here for the first time. For example many Coats of Arms of families, but also many works on subjects of science. And ofcourse, great numbers of uploaded photographs made by Commons users themselves. Should we consider those to have been officially published for the first time in the US? Making that country the country of first publication and therefor it being the source country? If released under a PD license, should Commons register all those works as such at the United States Copyright Office? --oSeveno (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

It is up to the photographer to register the photograph with the United States Copyright Office if the photographer so wishes. Registration provides some benefits to the photographer if the photographer wishes to sue someone in a US court. Registration in the US is presumably irrelevant if the photographer wishes to sue someone in a different country.

Commons shouldn't register anything as Commons isn't the copyright holder.

In accordance with Commons policy, you should always show why an out of copyright work is in the public domain in the United States and in the source country. {{PD-anon-70-EU}} says nothing about the United States, so a US copyright tag is also needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

So you say there is no treaty between the US and the European Union which is the base for this template? Then, what is the use for a EU template? What is the legal base for the template from a EU perspective? As a Commons contributor one should be able to trust the grounds for creating license templates. When a template refers to the EU, especially having the letters EU in it's name, one would expect there to be a direct connection to EU laws or treaties on this subject. And how about this:

• quote: „COM:L#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law reads: "For works first published before 1964, copyright [in the US] lasts 28 years after publication (and is therefore currently expired) unless the owner filed for renewal (during the window between 27 and 28 years after publication) in which case rights were extended to 95 years after first publication-the large majority of works published before 1964 have passed into the public domain, but it is imperative to determine that copyright was not renewed (which can be done through an online search at the Copyright Office for works published since 1951)".” source: Vysotsky 20:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

So either there is an other, missed aspect in this matter, or this template should be renamed, as the template clearly says: „This applies to the European Union...”, which suggests that there is a difference with PD-anon-70 licenses. Furthermore, as the template says: „For files in the public domain in the EU, please use PD-anon-70-EU”, that template also suggests there is a difference that relates to an aspect that is specific to the European Union.

Then there is the Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure. Why does this license exist additionally? --oSeveno (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

{{PD-anon-70-EU}} and {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} state that the copyright has expired in the European Union. The templates say nothing about other countries, such as the United States. Per Commons policy, you need to show that the copyright has expired in both the United States and the source country. An EU template is required if an EU country is the source country. A US template is always required.

EU law has two different definitions of "anonymous" and so it's necessary to have two templates (but the templates do not explain the difference very well). --Stefan2 (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It is still not clear to me, and I have worked with supreme court appeals. I am so over the US exempting itself from living by treaties it is a part of. (e.g. Bern Convention) And it is unreasonable to expect the entire world to have to live by the rulings of their courts. It creates the need to become legal experts for Commons contributors from all over the globe. That's just silly. It is time to move the Wikimedia Commons servers to a more stable/neutral country. Now to find out how to create a community vote on this. --oSeveno (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)