Template talk:PD-EU-no author disclosure

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

Corporate ownership[edit]

As well as pseudonymous or anonymous works, this template could be modified to include works which claim corporate ownership. UK and Belgian law, at least, recognise such cases and begin the 70 year term of protection at publication. I have no idea about other jurisdictions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anonymous-EU[edit]

How is this different from Template:Anonymous-EU, exactly? Other than adding those weird requirements? PS. I see this was asked, discussed and no consensus was reached at Template_talk:Anonymous-EU#PD-EU-no_author_disclosure. This suggest to me this template should be merged with the other one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Mormegil (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Actually, I would keep {{PD-anon-70}} and merge the other two, to have a generic template which covers all these cases, instead of three different templates, which cover almost the same cases. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the current wordings the licenses seem to be identical (the "weird requirements" are icluded in the other one, too). There is a reason for another license though for some special cases, where the work remains "pseudo-anonymous" (= its copyright expires 70 years after first publication) in spite of the fact that originally anonymous author's identity has been disclosed within 70 years from publication. As for now, neither this license nor the {{PD-anon-70-EU}} (aka {{Anonymous-EU}}) applies to these.--Shlomo (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definition if "published"[edit]

Can we have one? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is based on the Danish law (in particular the book Peter Schønning (2008) Ophavsretsloven med kommentarer, p. 211–214) but should be generally applicable to other EU countries:
  • A work is published when copies have been legally distributed to the public, usually but not necessarily through trade.
  • A work has been made available to the public when it has been published or it has been on public display or a public performance has taken place (both have to be done legally).
Note that at least the English version of the text is too strict because it does not distinguish correctly between publication and making available to the public. Making available to the public is the one we want. If we try to into much more depth than this, I think we will have to delve into country-specific stuff such as citing court cases, so that is about as specific a definition as I am comfortable writing. Peter Alberti (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring US PD[edit]

I will add this to the doc. Copied from Template:PD-anon-70-EU

A description page tagged with this template should also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why the work is in the public domain in the United States.

Is that OK to everyone? --Running (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Germany[edit]

This template has this text added for images that originate in Germany: "Please use this template only if you have proof that the author never claimed authorship or their authorship never became public in any other way." This wording does not appear in the article we host on German copyright law. How can you show proof that an "author never claimed authorship"? Epistemology says it is impossible to prove a negative, there is nothing I can show you that shows that, at no time and no place, an "author never claimed authorship". Conversely, I can only show that an "author claimed authorship" at some time and some place by linking to that website where that declaration was made. Should this text be modified in the template? The argument that I have to prove that an "author never claimed authorship" is being used in a deletion debate, and would effect all the images using this template that originate from Germany. What it should say is: "link to all known instances of this image or text online to show that there was no author disclosure". Also note that Germany allows a clawback from the public domain should the author be disclosed in the future, at which time we switch to 70 years pma. Can we remove this text, it is not the wording of the law in English or in German. --RAN (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, "no author disclosure" doesn't mean just online as suggested, but also print publications and such, especially the first publication, which for works from 1995 or before would almost always be a print publication. A lot of people seem to think "Oh, that website where I found the image does not mention an author, nor do these three other site where I also found it, so it must be anonymous." But it's not anonymous if it was credited at the first (or some later) publication and the websites just didn't bother to mention the artist's/author's name when they republished the image. Second, current German law (§ 66 UrhG) says that works are not anonymous anymore if the author disclosed his authorship within 70 years of publication. It would require some effort to show that such a disclosure did not happen, but it could be applied to some works if adequate research is done to establish that the artist is actually still anonymous and did not disclose his authorship. The old version of § 66 however, applicable to works before July 1, 1995, is what is basically impossible to handle because it actually says that the work is not anonymous anymore if the author's name became known in any (other) way, not just by crediting the author when the work is published or by the author disclosing himself. This could even happen at a "öffentliche[...] Wiedergabe des Werkes", a public rendition of the work, which could be an exhibition or a lecture. If you want to read up on it, see de:Anonymes Werk (Urheberrecht) (in German). That's why that template says what it says in regard to anonymous German works before July 1, 1995. In theory, there are anonymous German works from before July 1, 1995. In practice, you can never be sure that they really are anonymous, because of said provisions. So unless, against all odds and expectations, you can show in some way that the author's name never became known, don't use that template for German works published before July 1, 1995. --Rosenzweig τ 02:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publication means being made available to the public, not just appearing in a newspaper and magazine or book. See: Commons:Publication for the definition agreed upon by the Berne Convention. German copyright law allows a clawback from the public domain should the creator be known, and we will respect that here at Commons should the creator become known. --RAN (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, the photo could have been circulated by paper prints with the name of the photographer on the back (AFAIK that's the way those images were circulated by agencies for a long time), and I can agree that it would fit the term publication. Which would mean the image was not anonymous accd. to the old version of the German law as mentioned above, because the author's name was on the back and became known that way.
As for that "clawback" business you seem to suggest that we go ahead and allow every upload which claims that the work in question is anonymous (as long as it's at least 70 years old), and only delete if someone comes along and actually proves that the work is not anonymous. That is what is de facto happening for a lot of uploads here, but it's not the policy and it's not what is put in license tags. --Rosenzweig τ 16:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find disclaimers or warnings like "Please use this template only if you have proof that the author never claimed authorship or their authorship never became public in any other way." totally absurd, as it is a requirement that can not be ever fulfilled, so adding such statement to a template seems to me like preparation for deletion of all the images using this template. It is a bit like adding to Template:PD-1996 that you need an absolute proof that the image was not published earlier in a different country. We can prove presence of something, but we can not prove absence, so such statements are just adding confusion to already confusing matter. --Jarekt alt (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That you can't prove it is kind of the sad joke about the German law dealing with anonymous works before July 1, 1995. Anyway, the old law (still used for those old cases) is worded in such an unfortunate way that the German wikipedia decided early on not to accept media with anonymous authors (instead going for something similar to {{PD-old-assumed}}, see de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Bilder, deren Urheber nicht bekannt ist), and neither should we. With works from the early 1950s (70 years ago) the risk that the work is still protected (even if it wasn't credited at first publication) is too high, and this is not something we should expose the re-users of Commons media to. As it stands right now, this template is already abused left and right by people finding images (or other media) somewhere on the Internet, not seeing a named author and then uploading it here as "anonymous". If we remove the caveats and warnings as suggested, this is only going to get worse. This whole template is very problematic anyway, because it suggests that there is something like a common European (or EU) copyright law, while in fact there is not. The copyright laws of the EU and EEA countries were somewhat harmonized in 1995/96, but not necessarily retroactive in every case. So while this template might apply to German anonymous works published since the copyright laws were harmonized, that won't be relevant for us until 2066. Right now, it's only going to be misused for works from 1951 or earlier. It might be best to deprecate this template altogether and instead create templates for specific countries (like {{PD-UK-unknown}}), based on the actual laws of those countries. We have {{PD-Liechtenstein-old-unknown}}, which has the caveat " Note that this applies only if a reliable source is cited to indicate that the author is not publicly known; just not knowing who the author is is not enough to qualify the image as public domain. This image may not be in the public domain in countries other than Liechtenstein." That might be a model for a template like PD-Germany-anonymous or something similar. --Rosenzweig τ 22:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: You said "The risk is too high". Can you prove it? If you are going to ask for stricker requirements, at least they should be based on clear and precise issues, not vague fears. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for input about this in the German wikipedia. Is asking for a reliable source for the claim that an author is unknown/anonymous really a "stricter requirement" though? Isn't it what we always request if there is any doubt? And I'd say claims that something is anonymous are almost always doubtful if we don't know how the uploader arrived at the conclusion that the work is anonymous. --Rosenzweig τ 08:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a criminal offense in Germany, punishable by up to 3 years in prison or a fine, to reproduce protected works without authorization. This is probably not a "vague fear". sугсго 07:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC): There is a well-known judgement from 1989 (OLG Munich 06.07.1989 29 U 4462/88 "Josefine Mutzenbacher"). There, however, the application of the stricter German provision failed because the work was already PD under the predecessor law (here LUG = "Gesetz betreffend das Urheberrecht an Werken der Literatur und der Tonkunst"). Otherwise, according to the ruling, protection would have been granted 70 pma by the author's becoming known - he was named as such in the German Anonymous Encyclopedia, 1928, and generally known in the 1930ies: Felix Salten (penname) and Zsiga Salzmann (civil), respectively. But Bambi would probably not have become such a world success and filmed by Disney, if the author had confessed to most famous works of pornography until then.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syrcro (talk • contribs) [reply]
This is a strawman argument. The issue is not the punishment, but the probably to be sanctioned. If there is zero or near zero probability, you could even threaten with the death penalty, it doesn't matter. Yann (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of the strangest statements I have ever heard. According to it, a murder that is not punished would be okay. sугсго 08:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we shouldn't foremost think about probability to be sanctioned, but we can never ensure nobody will be sentenced for something absurd. In Finland, an action cannot be a crime unless you commit it knowingly and by intention (or in some cases, by recklessness). I assume the same is true in Germany. Thus we don't need proof that something is anonymous, just a solid reason to believe so. If somebody is using the file in a way that may mean severe damages, they have to do their own research and risk evaluation. –LPfi (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany and possibly[edit]

{{Edit request}}

The template says in a note:

"In Germany and possibly other countries, certain anonymous works published before July 1, 1995 are copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the author if the author's identity became public in any way. See Übergangsrecht."

In Finland, and probably more countries, works are indeed in copyright for 70 years pma if the author became known. The second paragraph of section 44 of the Finnish law says (ad hoc translation; the WIPO doesn't seem to provide their own any more, just machine translations):

Om upphovsmannens identitet kan fastställas inom den tid som anges i 1 mom., iakttas 43 §.
If the author's identity can be determined in the term specified in the first paragraph [70 years after publication], section 43 [70 years pma] is to be observed.

(For unpublished works by unknown authors, the term is 70 years after creation.)

Thus, please change the quoted text to

"In some countries anonymous works are copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the author if the author's identity became public in any way during the original term. In Germany this applies to certain works published before July 1, 1995 (see Übergangsrecht)."

–LPfi (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be okay with that,  Support. Any other opinions? --Rosenzweig τ 11:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links in template[edit]

{{Edit request}} There are two terms that we use that should be linked to their definitions. Deletion debates center around the terms, so we should link to them: --RAN (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done in Special:Diff/666039144. Other translations looks unprotected. --TKsdik8900 (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This vs PD-anon-70-EU[edit]

See Template talk:PD-anon-70-EU#This vs PD-EU-no author disclosure. —holly {chat} 17:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:PD-EU-no_author_disclosure&oldid=849277746"