Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/China

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

Non-Manchukuo stamps

[edit]

Are there any indicates that stamps that are not from Manchukuo government are available in this site or not? --117.14.250.195 02:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, nope, unless if (in the very unlikely case) the China Post withdrawn their rights for them. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I recently found a law term from Post Law of the People's Republic of China (中华人民共和国邮政法) might be related to your issue concerned:
第四十一条...
任何单位和个人不得伪造邮资凭证或者倒卖伪造的邮资凭证,不得擅自仿印邮票和邮资图案。
lit.
Article 41...
Any departments and individuals are not permitted to forge postage certificates, or release the forged postage certificates, and are not permitted to re-print post stamps and post certificate images.
And based on the very-restricted Administration Law for the forged post stamp images (仿印邮票图案管理办法) from SPB, I would say, PLEASE NEVER upload China Post's stamps (unless if you have evidences to say some of them are in Public Domain) to Commons, just remember its Article 6:
禁止个人仿印邮票图案。 (Personal forging of post stamp images are PROHIBITED.)

Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Full texts of 2010 version of 中华人民共和国著作权法: Chinese, English.--Roy17 (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FoP: court rules use of photo of an outdoor sculpture on postcards as infringement

[edit]

明信片擅用《磁器口更夫》 法院判停用登报道歉赔钱. Pinging @Liuxinyu970226, 沈澄心, and 廣九直通車. --Wcam (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"法院认为,重庆邮政广告公司在发布涉案明信片时未予署名,且未有不便指明作者名称的情形,侵犯了权利人的署名权。" (lit. The court consider that the Chongqing Post Advertisement Company did not add attribution when releasing the postcards in case, and especially didn't explain why it's so difficult to add a notice for authors of them, hence a violation of the copyright holder.) This doesn't look like a "fair use" violation, it's also possible to be a lot of crime stuffs if someone repost CC BY and/or CC BY-SA licensed materials without attribution, just if they didn't explain why these are however Public Domain-suitable, so I stronglly recommend you to rollback the first sentence back to just OK with attribution. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: Please read this article which includes comments from the judge. This case is clearly not just about attribution, as the judge used the fair use criteria in making the decision: "法官认为,判断室外公共场所艺术作品的再行使用是否构成合理使用不仅应当从再行使用的目的,还应当结合使用性质、使用后果等因素进行综合分析。" (The judge held that, to judge whether the reuse of outdoor public artworks constitutes a reasonable use should not only from the purpose of reuse, but also should be combined with the nature of use, the consequences of use and other factors for a comprehensive analysis.) --Wcam (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcam: Everything can have their copyrights, even the commas, full stops (don't believe it? An example at zhwikisource: s:zh:Wikisource:版權討論/存檔/2020年#5月). But is it meaning that they can't be reused? No, the another case you recently provided is same problem I pointed, attribution is not required if and only if they are {{PD-ineligible}}. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the core point is attribution, as the court made the ruling mainly because Chongqing Post Advertisement Company failed to properly attribute the author. Moreover, I think when compared to courts of first instance, cases determined by intermediate courts in major cities and high courts are more representative.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcam and 廣九直通車: Also, Per Nat's comment in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Patrons at Comic Frontier 13.jpg, FOP in every countries can also be counted as fair use based on how their local courts love to judge, note that the user page of @Jeromi Mikhael: currently says: "To Deletionists: Please👏Consider👏Uploading👏FoPs👏To👏Wikipedia👏As👏Fair👏Use!!", so I would rather believe that this isn't China-specific problem but rather affecting the entire COM:FOP. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: Probably. The exception for Laos is grouped under fair use provisions in their copyright law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wcam, Liuxinyu970226, 沈澄心, and 廣九直通車: Sorry to bother you. I just uploaded the full text of the judicial ruling at zhWikisource. And as you can see, the court ruled that "被告重庆邮政广告公司的行为侵犯了原告的署名权、复制权" (the defendant, Chongqing Post Advertisement Company, infringed the right of reproduction and the right of authorship of the plaintiff,) which means even if the defendant had given appropriate attribution, the liability of compensation was still inevitable. Some professors in IP also gave their views on subsequent use of FoP photos which says whether one can use the FoP photos depends on the originality of the photo. If the photo is just a reproduction of the original art work, subsequent use of the FoP photo is not permitted. (See 李扬:《著作权法基本原理》,知识产权出版社2019年版) Li Ping (李萍) also thinks so, in Study on Subsequent Use of Works —— Comment on Article 42 Subsection (10) of Copyright Law Draft (作品后续使用研究——兼评《著作权法》修改草案第42条第(十)项).

In fact, the ruling of the case of May Wind sculpture listed in COM:FOP China also says the sculpture is just an element of the photo. (See [1])

And for faithful photographic reproductions of 2-D art works (of course lacking originality), the draft of Copyright Law of PRC (2014) (Download here) gives a clarification that reproducing in same form of the original art work is not permitted. (Article 43) Prof. Wang Qian(王迁) also thinks so even if the draft did not give the clarification (See 王迁:《知识产权法教程》(第七版),中国人民大学出版社2021年版).

(十)对设置或者陈列在室外公共场所的艺术作品进行临摹、绘画、摄影、录像并复制、发行以及向公众传播,但不得以该艺术作品的相同方式复制、陈列以及公开传播;
(10) copying, drawing, photographing or video-recording, and then reproducing, distributing or making it available to the public of a work of art put up or displayed in outdoor public places; provided, however, that this does not apply if one reproduces, displays or makes it available to the public in the same form of a work of art.

Although the court gave its comment in another way, the court of Nantong ruled that art works displayed on billboards cannot be used on packaging boxes of mooncake commercially. (南通骑士广告设计有限公司诉南通佳麦食品有限公司案,[2])

So, I think files like File:Mao Zedong portrait.jpg are definitely eligible to be nominated for deletion. And the issue of photos of sculpture should be discussed seriously. --Teetrition (talk) 08:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Teetrition: I see some similarity to COM:FOP Netherlands, COM:FOP Brazil, and COM:FOP Belgium. In those countries, FOP for commercial use is fine, attribution may be required in many cases, and in terms of the view of the artwork and building it should be depicted on photos or videos as it is found there; users must not edit out any parts to the point that only the building or the artwork becomes present (the sky, ground, and other objects being edited out).
I can see a high probability of a similar case for China. You mentioned that for the May Wind sculpture, the sculpture is in the image and the image, in my assumption, probably still included the sky, the clouds, and other objects of secondary to tertiary presence. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

@Hamish, Jimmy Xu, Mys 721tx, Nbfreeh, Niklitov, Stang, Taiwania Justo, Tommyang, Wong128hk, and 蟲蟲飛: @Wcam, Shizhao, and Jusjih: See s:zh:全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于修改《中华人民共和国著作权法》的决定 (2020年)

There is a new version of Mainland China copyright law, effective 1 June 2021. Significant changes are:

  • Photographs that are in copyright as of 1 June 2021 will enter the public domain 50 years after the death of the creator. Note this will be different from the rule in Taiwan. So Template:FoP-China should limit to works that is published in places which are now part of Mainland China.
  • The "outdoor" restriction of Freedom of panorama is removed.

Templates needing modification are {{PD-China}} and {{FoP-China}}.--GZWDer (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also Commons:Copyright rules by territory/China needs updating. Pinging @Liuxinyu970226, 沈澄心, and 廣九直通車. --Wcam (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GZWDer and Wcam: So most probably we'll need to create a new template (such as something like Template:PD-PRC-Photo) to accommodate the new requirement? The amendment on {{FoP-China}} will be quite easy though, as it only involves deleting words related to the outdoor requirement.廣九直通車 (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
最新的著作权法全文似乎还没有官方版本?目前找到的似乎都是根据决定修改的非官方版本?根据非官方版本,主要有以下几方面可能与commons相关:
  • 摄影作品的保护期获得了延长,由原来的发表后50年改为了作者死后50年(需要修改{{PD-China}},并同时新增Template:PD-PRC-Photo?或者将{{PD-China}}拆分为{{PD-ROC}}{{PD-PRC}}?)
    • 第六十五条:“摄影作品,其发表权、本法第十条第一款第五项至第十七项规定的权利的保护期在2021年6月1日前已经届满,但依据本法第二十三条第一款的规定仍在保护期内的,不再保护。”
  • 是否需要单独建一个视听作品的模板?毕竟目前只有视听作品保护期是发表后50年。
  • FoP的限制变宽松了,只要是公共场所就可以,不区分室内外了(需要修改Template:FoP-China及其相关页面)
  • ”报社、期刊社、通讯社、广播电台、电视台的工作人员创作的职务作品“,意味着媒体工作人员的职务作品,除署名权外,其他著作权利归作者所属机构所有。也就意味着这些作品发表50年后就进入PD。这一类作品进入PD的门槛变低了(是否需要新建一个{{PD-PRC-Media}}?)

--shizhao (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

思考了一下,拆分{{PD-China}}{{PD-ROC}}{{PD-PRC}}会比较清楚,毕竟大陆和台湾的著作权法差异变大了,难以用一个模板来表示。另外,PD-China需要废弃--shizhao (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shizhao: 不是还有{{PD-Taiwan}}用于台湾公有领域作品嘛?--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
那么{{PD-China}}怎么处理?以及处理过后已经用模板的文件怎么办?--shizhao (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shizhao: Can't you just move all "Taiwan-related" contents to PD-Taiwan, during renaming to Template:PD-Mainland China? 您就不能在改名为Template:PD-Mainland China的同时把原模板中的“台湾相关”字句移动到PD-Taiwan模板么?--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it's not uncommon that one thing can be Public Domain even in US, because of terms of another jurisdiction, the Basic Law of Hong Kong SAR is just an example of however {{PD-PRC-exempt}}. 顺便,拿别人家管辖区的条款证明某作品即便在美国也是公有领域已不鲜见,香港特区基本法就是一个挪用了隔壁大陆{{PD-PRC-exempt}}的例子。--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Question is this updated copyright law already passed/implemented or is nearing the passage or implementation? Thanks for the answer. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Alas, I failed to read the very first input. Slashed my input. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shizhao: And, for film & sound works, this may affect our Commons:Hirtle_chart#Sound_recordings, so I don't see why another template for this case is need (at least by now, as the first set of such works Public Domain in China must wait for 2022 to be PD-US). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not use {{PD-old-auto}} directly e.g. {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=1969}}?--Njzjz (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Njzjz: If you means that why "we must wait for 2022 to upload film & sound works", the answer is simply to say, because of the Music Modernization Act. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: By the way, we can undelete photos for indoor artworks in Category:Chinese_FOP_cases/deleted at that time. 补充一句,届时可以恢复Category:Chinese_FOP_cases/deleted内因位于室内而被删除的文件。--Njzjz (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Njzjz, JWilz12345, Aymatth2, and Wcam: Yes, but please, not yet. We should at least wait for June 1, 2021, and make the necessary modifications of COM:FOP China, {{FoP-China}} and IMHO {{Not-free-US-FOP}} (iirc because some of the potential artworks may still violate COM:FOP US?!). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Njzjz: agree with Liuxinyu970226. Browse through logs of images of Belgium's famous landmark Atomium, and you may notice that dozens of deleted Atomium images were only restored when FOP became implemented in that country. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GZWDer, Wcam, Liuxinyu970226, and JWilz12345: The new copyright law has been in effect. We can start to modify related pages. Njzjz (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Njzjz: Then, what to do with {{PD-China}}? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Njzjz: in terms of FOP, the section at CRT page must be revised accordingly before undeletions can be made or requested. The inclusion of indoor works in Chinese FOP must be accompanied by citation. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aymatth2: WIPO now also lists the 2020 amendment of copyright law: https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/legislation/details/21065 --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indoor FOP in China

[edit]

Inferring from w:User talk:P199#Is this RS?, it seems that there is still no reliable translation of the Chinese copyright law. In effect, the applicability of FOP for indoor works is put into question.

In the website I accessed lately, [3] (which is more of wiki-type), it is indicated under the limitations: "(10) Copying, painting, photography, and video recording of art works installed or displayed in public places;."

The same provision at wikisource:zh:中华人民共和国著作权法 (2020年) reads "(十)对设置或者陈列在公共场所的艺术作品进行临摹、绘画、摄影、录像; (Literal Google translation: "(10) Copying, painting, photography, and video recording of art works installed or displayed in public places;").

Because of this, does Chinese FOP really apply to indoor works? Most of the copyright laws of countries marked as dark green on Wikipedia FOP maps (ex. UK, India, Australia, and New Zealand) explicitly include public indoors via a wording "that are permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public." Or is Chinese FOP identical or similar the Portuguese one which the applicability of indoor works is based on either interpretation, legal literature, or existing jurisprudence? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This item is modified by "删去第一款第十项中的“室外”。" (Delete "outdoor" in Paragraph 1 (10).) from s:zh:全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于修改《中华人民共和国著作权法》的决定 (2020年) (Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Amending the "Labor Rights Law of the People's Republic of China"). So it should have changed something, otherwise they do not need to delete the word "outdoor". Njzjz (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let @Wcam: help you, sorry I don't have enough time to focus here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
有一个问题,对于新法实行前发表的照片,FOP应该怎么算?--shizhao (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
第二十四条规定的是“使用作品”(exploite),因此应该和发表时间无关。 Njzjz (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The page says,

Gang Heng logo: China's Supreme People's Court ruled this logo to be protected by copyright in 2014.

in the chapter "Threshold of originality".

Related template can be found at {{NoTOO-China}}.

However, The Supreme People's Court of PRC HAS NOT ruled this logo to be protected by copyright because the reexamination applicant adduced the opinion that the logo is not copyrightable at the reexamination procedure instead of at the first or the second trial. You can refer to the very verdict, which says,

As to the Wang Yutong's opinion that the logo is not a copyrightable material, which adduced when he applied for reexamination, given that he did not adduce the opinion in the trademark review and adjudication, the first trial or the second trial, the opinion shall not be examined.
王裕同申请再审时亦提出涉案标识不构成作品的主张,鉴于其在商标评审阶段以及一、二审诉讼期间均未对此提出过主张,本院对该问题不予审查。

We can know from the verdict that the issue on the copyrightability of the logo has NEVER been examined by any court of PRC. Therefore, I think the statement mentioned above should be modified or removed. Related templates should also be modified. --Teetrition (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Supreme People's Court did not examine in depth the copyrightability of the logo, it, along with two lower courts and the Tradmark Examination Committee, ruled that the logo does have a copyright holder, and that using said logo without permission by the other party constitutes copyright infringement. The fact remains that relatively simple designs can be subject to copyright protection in China and the statement on COM:TOO China remains correct. -- Wcam (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issues of this page

[edit]

【注:除第五部分外的部分内容有修改,以斜体字表示。对于第五部分的港亨标志案,我已有新的观点,请参见最新讨论。】

鉴于本页面的编者母语多为中文,以下使用中文表述,防止对一些法律词汇的误译及造成理解上的更多障碍。

有关中文译文与现行法律条文不匹配或直接翻译英文文本的问题,由于英文是从中文法条翻译而来,这一翻译过程未免多少会产生信息的损失和偏差。如果不直接使用中文法条原文而是逐字翻译英文文本,这会造成进一步的信息损失和偏差。相信各位编者对于修改这一问题并无异议,日后我会本页的中文翻译进行修改。

以下内容以本页的中文译文为基础,我推定其与英文文本无异,分点叙述本页面的其他问题。这些问题与前述翻译上的文字性问题不同,涉及一些观点上的差异,编写匆忙如某些语调令人感到冒犯还请见谅,本人绝无此意。期待能够得到其他各位编者的意见。

顺带提及几位本页面的活跃编者,如有打扰还请见谅。@Wcam, TimWu007, and Liuxinyu970226:

一、溯及力规定等过渡性条款规定

[edit]

「背景」一章中有「2020年著作权法修正案具有追溯效力」和「1990年的中华人民共和国著作权法第55条也有同样的规定」的表述。

私以为这一表述并不恰当。

根据全国人民代表大会常务委员会法制工作委员会印发的《立法技术规范(试行)(一)》(法工委发〔2009〕62号)之「四、法律修改形式规范」,中华人民共和国的法律修改方式分为修正和修订两种。其中:

  1. 采用法律修订形式的,公布新的法律文本,法律实施日期为修订后的实施日期;
  2. 采用法律修正形式的,可以采用修改决定的方式,也可以采用修正案的方式。无论是修改决定还是修正案,在这种修改方式下,法律附则中的施行日期条款不会根据修改决定或修正案的施行日期修改。《著作权法》(2020年修正)第67条仍规定「本法自1991年6月1日起施行」即为此证。

一般而言,采用修订形式的修改幅度更大。

当前中华人民共和国法律(狭义)采用修正案形式修改的仅有《刑法》,而其余法律的修正均采修改决定的方式,本页使用「修正案」,用词略微不当(即便如此,考虑到文化差异,我不反对原文使用「amendment」)。

然而撇开「修正案」用词不谈,2020年《著作权法》修改决定的追溯效力并非体现在本页列举的「本法规定的著作权人和出版者、表演者、录音录像制作者、广播电台、电视台的权利,在本法施行之日尚未超过本法规定的保护期的,依照本法予以保护」之规定中,因为这一规定自1990年《著作权法》颁布以来并未有过改变。这一规定体现的是1990年初版《著作权法》的溯及力问题。体现2020年《著作权法》修决定的追溯效力的规定是第65条:

摄影作品,其发表权、本法第十条第一款第五项至第十七项规定的权利的保护期在2021年6月1日前已经届满,但依据本法第二十三条第一款的规定仍在保护期内的,不再保护。

然而这一规定似无需在背景一章中强调,本章介绍《中华人民共和国著作权法》对于其颁布前的溯及力规定即可。

综上,我建议本页对应段落修改为:

《中华人民共和国著作权法》对其施行前的作品亦具有追溯效力:

本法规定的著作权人和出版者、表演者、录音录像制作者、广播电台、电视台的权利,在本法施行之日尚未超过本法规定的保护期的,依照本法予以保护。(1990年,第55条)

二、「概述」一章对人格权规定的介绍

[edit]

这并非著作权限制,正如商标权模板{{Trademarked}}的叙述一般正如既有模板{{Personality rights}}的叙述一般。宜对此予以说明。

三、支票的版权保护

[edit]

正如既有的「需要解释」标签,许多支票背景有显然满足独创性门槛的防伪底纹,认为「中国支票的设计低于原创性的门槛」不恰当。对于基础不带背景的票样,我认可其属于公有领域。

四、货币的版权保护

[edit]

依据《人民币图样使用管理办法》解释货币的可版权性是错误的。原文所列举的第4条、第6条、第9条之规定是使用货币的行政法上的限制。正如《商标法》中禁止使用外国国旗作为商标一般,如果以该规定为由认为日本国旗受到著作权法保护,这显然是荒谬的。文中所列《人民币图样使用管理办法》的规定正如前述《商标法》之规定一般,是行政上对人民币图样用途的限制,而与作为私法的著作权制度无涉。

对于这种限制,除前述商标标签外,维基共享业已有有关货币的模板{{Currency}},而《人民币图样使用管理办法》规定的正是该模板所述的限制。另参见Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions

另讨论中华人民共和国的货币图样的可版权性问题。如中国人民银行公告〔2019〕第4号一般,如认为中国人民银行的公告属于行政方面的官方文件,则这些货币图样属于公有领域。

如果认为这些图样只是该文件的附件而应分别讨论它和文件本身可版权性,则这无法解释维基共享为中华人民共和国国旗国徽使用了{{PD-PRC-exempt}}模板。

即使认为中国人民银行的公告不属于行政方面的官方文件,前述有关《人民币图样使用管理办法》的表述可作为补充说明但不应作为人民币图样受版权保护的理由使用,而应使用其满足独创性门槛且没有法律规定排除对其的保护的理由。

同理,页面所述「停止流通且著作权过期的货币」的「停止流通」是多余的条件,货币图样是否受保护与其是否流通无关,是否流通影响的是是否存在行政法乃至刑法上的限制。

然而阁下可别不信,“则这无法解释维基共享为中华人民共和国国旗国徽使用了{{PD-PRC-exempt}}模板”我可以帮忙解释:国旗发表于1949年9月28日,权属的认定应依照1990年版的著作权法:
由法人或者非法人单位主持,代表法人或者非法人单位意志创作,并由法人或者非法人单位承担责任的作品,法人或者非法人单位视为作者。”第十七条规定:“受委托创作的作品,著作权的归属由委托人和受托人通过合同约定。合同未作明确约定或者没有订立合同的,著作权属于受托人。

因此其著作权理应归属于中国人民政治协商会议,现在是公有领域,不意味着发表当时也是。--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226 阁下的意思是,国旗应当使用著作权过期模板吗?如果是,那么我想我“无法解释使用{{PD-PRC-exempt}}模板”的观点和阁下的观点可能并没有冲突。此外,您也说了,未作约定则著作权属于受托人,也就是接受委托的人。 Teetrition (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
可以改,请便,不过既然“现在是公有领域”,改不改无所谓了,对终端用户无痛无痒的更改我不在乎也不打算干涉。 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
而且中国人民银行法中的“禁止在宣传品、出版物或者其他商品上非法使用人民币图样。”这不明显符合NC了嘛? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226 需要提醒阁下:
  1. “禁止在宣传品、出版物或者其他商品上非法使用人民币图样”和“禁止在宣传品、出版物或者其他商品上使用人民币图样”是两个意思;
  2. 这一规定对保护期已过的旧版人民币同样适用
  3. 这一规定的主要目的是为了维护货币管理秩序和人民币的尊严;
  4. 国旗法中规定“国旗及其图案不得用作商标、授予专利权的外观设计和商业广告”,国徽法中规定“国徽及其图案不得用于:(一)商标、授予专利权的外观设计、商业广告”。
Teetrition (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
同时,再次声明我在维基社群的观点、逻辑与现有页面中的观点一致,即按人民币受保护处理,但理由是人民币图样满足独创性要求等作品构成要件,因此原则上作为作品受保护,且现有共识下没有法律法规能够排除对它的著作权保护。而非行政法规范中的禁用或需申请的条文导致它受保护。 Teetrition (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
同时,我也依然坚持后文所述,人民币上的中国人民银行字样,证明了中国人民银行依法在人民币(无论原币还是样币)上行使署名权。 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
那么“禁止伪造、变造人民币。禁止出售、购买伪造、变造的人民币。禁止运输、持有、使用伪造、变造的人民币。”这不算NDLiuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226:按阁下的逻辑,所有国家的货币都是ND,谢谢。 Teetrition (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
是么?我后面说到了美国货币大部分公有领域,以及前苏联继承国认定货币乃是国家象征这两点了哦,这两种情况是可以合法持有、分享伪造货币的哦。 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“这一规定对保护期已过的旧版人民币同样适用”?目前恐怕这件事缺乏法律解释,建议您自行收回这一言论。 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

五、港亨标志问题

[edit]

正如我早前在本讨论页#Issue on Gang Heng logo and related templates一章的说明,最高法并未对港亨标志的可版权性进行审查。

虽然@Wcam: 回复我称三级法院及商评委认定该商标「有一个著作权人」且他人未经许可使用的行为「构成著作权侵权」,但我想提请各位编者注意:

本案案由并非著作权侵权而是有关商标争议的行政诉讼案件,本案原告(按一审地位表述,下同)亦未对此承担民事上或刑事上的法律责任,其使用了第三人在先设计的商标(申请/注册号:767324)作为其商标(亦即本案被异议商标,申请/注册号:5423910),根据此二者商标的分类,其也似乎可以满足《商标法》第32条和第45条的规定(现行有效版本法条序号,案件当时亦有本条仅序号不同),以相似商品上的近似商标为由,本案原告的商标不应被注册,利害关系人亦可以此理由申请商标无效。

对于最高法以原告未在商标复审及一二审中提出而对本案商标可版权性的主张不予审查的表述,由于我没有找到再审中提出的新理由不予审查的规定的法律依据(作为比较,较为常见的是根据再审范围有限原则对新的诉讼请求(而非新的理由)不予审查),根据维持诉讼经济和效率的角度来看,以「既然被异议商标可因为在相似商品上使用近似商标而被无效,此时便无需改变一二审商标无效的认定」来解释最高法的裁定也是可以接受的。

另需要注意的是,最高法的裁定是对案件能否进入再审阶段的判断,最高法仅裁定驳回了原告的再审申请而未判断涉案标志的可版权性。本文现有表述易被理解为「最高法(重点在于是最高法而非其他主体)认为该标志满足了独创性门槛」,特别是在该表述在独创性门槛一章中时。

综上所述,即使这一案件可以作为TOO一章的例子,其亦不应作为典例甚至在相关模板({{NoTOO-China}})中被提及,前述可能造成歧义的理解也建议修改为对本案的详细叙述。

另有相似案例可供参考:

第777364号商标的著作权人认为第1603245号商标侵犯了其在先著作权,最高法(2012)知行字第38号认为第777364号不满足作品独创性要求。

本案与前述港亨案不同的是,该案两个商标的国际分类相去甚远,商品或服务类别上难以构成「相似」。

本案亦可作为中华人民共和国独创性门槛并非「非常低」的论据。

本节所涉及商标的具体图案可根据编号在国家知识产权局商标局 中国商标网 商标查询查询到。

长文还请见谅。--Teetrition (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Teetrition: 感谢您详尽的分析,不过我对港亨标志问题仍有疑问:您认为本案案由并非著作权侵权而是有关商标争议的行政诉讼案件,然而最高法院的行政裁定书中提到:「本案争议焦点为王裕同申请注册被异议商标是否损害了刘国铨的在先著作权」,以及「刘国铨作为涉案标识的设计人,主张王裕同申请被异议商标的行为损害其著作权具有事实和法律基础,商标评审委员会和一、二审法院对此认定正确」,这是否足以证明最高法院认为港亨标志是受到著作权保护的?如果是的话,从维基共享资源的角度而言,列出在某一国家受著作权保护的作品,可作为判定该国其他类似作品是否应被共享资源收录的参考依据(即港亨标志在中国被法院判定受到著作权保护,因而其他类似的作品也很可能经过司法程序(无论是否会直接判断相应标志的可版权性)得到类似的结果)。根据共享资源的预防原则,当文件的使用自由受到高度质疑时,该文件应当被删除。对于前述假设性的「类似作品」,最高法院对于港亨标志的判决应当构成对该图片使用自由受到高度质疑。总之,我认为港亨标志是否受到著作权保护这一事实本身非常重要。--Wcam (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcam: 感谢回复。我意识到我陷入了一个思维误区。按照最为审慎的态度,我一改之前的观点。由于本案法院并未判断在先商标的独创性,但结合其他案例,我个人认为此类商标在中国可能可以受到一定程度的著作权保护。
下面是一些冗长的、无关紧要的补充说明:
我并未否认本案存在著作权问题。第767324号商标的设计人正是以侵犯其著作权为由提出了对第5423910号商标注册的异议,这是为《商标法》所允许的异议理由。
我现在的观点更改为「港亨案不宜作为本章典型案例提及」。要作为「原创门槛」一章有力的说理案例,法院明确指出某某内容符合独创性门槛的案例显然更为合适。正如我早前所言,这一案例仍存在瑕疵,这使得本案作为著作权「原创门槛」的例子欠缺一定的典范性。虽然这使得讨论变得更加冗长,请允许我再总结一次本案的瑕疵之处:
一二审法院没有对在先商标是否构成作品作分析,案件的争议点反而集中在了在先商标的设计人是否是本案第三人(即最初的异议人)。而最高法也集中审查前述争议点,对在先商标是否构成作品不予审查。
不可否认,如果本案第三人不是在先商标的设计人,则他并无资格对后一商标的注册提出异议(《商标法》规定此种异议仅能由在先权利人或利害关系人提起),而这也将导致本案原告(即被控著作权侵权人)胜诉。然而由于一二审法院认为本案第三人是在先商标的设计人这一事实达到了民事诉讼的证明标准,故原告的这一抗辩没有成功。
而前述一二审法院的论证逻辑存在错误:只有满足了独创性门槛的内容(material)才能构成受著作权法保护的作品(work)。一二审法院相当于跳过了必经的论证过程,建立在在先商标构成作品这一假定成立的基础上直接讨论第三人是否是设计人(著作权人)。
最高法作出的是驳回再审申请的裁定,即最高法不同意本案进入再审。基于这一点,正如我之前的叙述,我也不太赞成使用「这被最高人民法院裁定受版权保护」这样容易造成误解的表述——最高法仅是对一二审有关是否是设计人的争议点进行了集中审查。我无法找到最高法对在先商标是否构成作品不予审查的法律依据,在之前我也对不予审查的原因作出了猜测(对于最高法以原告未在商标复审及一二审中提出而对本案商标可版权性的主张不予审查的表述,由于我没有找到再审中提出的新理由不予审查的规定的法律依据(作为比较,较为常见的是根据再审范围有限原则对新的诉讼请求(而非新的理由)不予审查),根据维持诉讼经济和效率的角度来看,以「既然被异议商标可因为在相似商品上使用近似商标而被无效,此时便无需改变一二审商标无效的认定」来解释最高法的裁定也是可以接受的。)。如果我的猜想成立,那有关商标相似的这一介入因素亦使得本案不再纯粹是著作权问题。
可供对比的案例是我昨天讨论中提到的最高法(2012)知行字第38号超群商标案例,本案一二审中即对涉案商标是否构成作品进行了审查(得出了不构成作品的结论),在最高法的驳回再审的裁定中亦确认了不构成作品的观点。这一案例与本案的情况十分相似,均是在先商标的设计人起诉在后商标侵犯其著作权而要求无效掉在后商标,但本案例不存在商标法上的其他无效理由(本案商品或服务的类别明显不同)。在本案例中,最高法甚至确认了这一非标准字体、甚至可以称得上某种书法作品的标志不构成作品。这一案例值得被关注,也值得与本案进行比较。
如前所述,我想是否可以把港亨案这一典例替换为法院明确确认了作品具有独创性的案例,如Not OK中的迪尼玛标志?或者干脆不列这样的「the most noticeable cases」,优先列出法院作出独创性判断的案例,将其他案例作为优先级更低的参考使用。
顺带一提,我认可您在Commons:Deletion requests/Template:NoTOO-China中的观点。
几经思考和删改,我说服我自己得出以上结论。另列出一个我在编写本段文字过程中删除的一个例子,我原以为这个案例与「原创门槛」中所列火柴人案例是不同的案例,一经对比惊讶发现这是同一个案子。该案北京高院的观点是原告火柴人形象独创性程度并不高,因此不能对其予以过高的保护,应将公有领域的部分排除出保护范围,由于被告作品并未涉及原告有独创性的部分,原告因此败诉。这似乎与页面中的表述不符。
另外,在这一思考过程中,我发现本页中文译文普遍使用「裁定」一词,这在中文语境下容易造成误解,特别是有法学基础知识的人的误解。原文「rule」并无不妥,但中文语境下「裁定」和「判决」对应法院作出的到底是「裁定书」还是「判决书」,此二者用词在我看来不容混淆。例如迪尼玛一案中最高法作出了「判决」而此处用词是「裁定」。私以为不如全部改为「裁决」或「认定」。
另征询您是否对港亨标志之外的观点有反对意见。
行文逻辑混乱还请见谅。 Teetrition (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Teetrition: 感谢,您的表述非常清晰,我已明白您的看法。我同意将超群商标的例子加入TOO一章,但港亨一例也可保留,只需加上法院未对该标志独创性进行专门审查的相关说明。TOO一章首段的表述和其他地方的表述(包括您上方提出的一二三四点),您可以按照您认为适当的提法直接自行修改。 Wcam (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcam: 我注意到中文维基百科上当前版本的Money-RMB模板(2021年11月14日 (日) 10:15版本‎,固定链接)中存在这样的表述:

在维基百科上的展示的中国人民银行纸币,是经过了中国人民银行的许可,本授权协议需要每年更新。
需要分别向中国工商银行、中国建设银行、中国农业银行、中国银行、交通银行和中国邮政储蓄银行寻求单独的许可和执照。

这一表述十分令人困惑,“每年更新”体现在何处?为何是向这几个商业银行(而非作为央行的中国人民银行)寻求许可和执照?不知这是否体现了当前中文维基百科的共识,是否有既有的讨论可供查询?
结合该模板页面历史中您曾回退过该版本编者的编辑与您曾封禁过该编者,我认为这一表述应该是不可信的。
12:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)更新:已将其他相关问题提交中文维基百科互助客栈/条目探讨Teetrition (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

等一下,人民币版权这事,我觉得可能进一步有的一聊

[edit]

@Teetrition: 阁下基于“是行政上对人民币图样用途的限制,而与作为私法的著作权制度无涉。”认为有关限制是非版权限制,恐怕有违反(甚至纵容乃至于唆使其他用户违反)《中华人民共和国中国人民银行法》之嫌,其第三章 人民币一节有以下规定:

第十九条 禁止伪造、变造人民币。禁止出售、购买伪造、变造的人民币。禁止运输、持有、使用伪造、变造的人民币。禁止故意毁损人民币。禁止在宣传品、出版物或者其他商品上非法使用人民币图样。
第二十条 任何单位和个人不得印制、发售代币票券,以代替人民币在市场上流通。

及第七章 法律责任:

第四十二条 伪造、变造人民币,出售伪造、变造的人民币,或者明知是伪造、变造的人民币而运输,构成犯罪的,依法追究刑事责任;尚不构成犯罪的,由公安机关处十五日以下拘留、一万元以下罚款。
第四十三条 购买伪造、变造的人民币或者明知是伪造、变造的人民币而持有、使用,构成犯罪的,依法追究刑事责任;尚不构成犯罪的,由公安机关处十五日以下拘留、一万元以下罚款。
第四十四条 在宣传品、出版物或者其他商品上非法使用人民币图样的,中国人民银行应当责令改正,并销毁非法使用的人民币图样,没收违法所得,并处五万元以下罚款。
第四十五条 印制、发售代币票券,以代替人民币在市场上流通的,中国人民银行应当责令停止违法行为,并处二十万元以下罚款。

参考多个其他国家和地区CRT专页(只要有提到货币一节而且说 Not OK的,比如加拿大的),如果那些外国页面认为有关货币不可以上传本站是因为需要向中央银行申请授权,那么为什么放到PRC这边,却反而可以认为有关授权要求无关版权?我们是不是刻意在搞双标主义?--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: 阁下没必要引用这些行政法的规定,其实可以直接引用刑法的货币犯罪说伪造货币罪至无期徒刑的,这样下来甚至可以说我是在教唆犯罪。尚祈注意中国货币因版权问题无共识现在无法上传至维基共享资源,我也有提到,currency模板中有提到这些行政法或刑法限制,即使日后人民币可以上传,这个模板也能提醒他人行政法或刑法限制,或是要新建一个模板也行。至于阁下提到的加拿大的页面,该国实际上是怎样我先不去探讨,但按页面中的描述,该国对货币的版权是有著作权法的限制的,情形显然不同。Teetrition (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226:再次详细地回复阁下有关人民版权的问题。
阁下提到的加拿大的页面,其中央银行页面明确说明自己是著作权人(The Bank of Canada is the registered copyright owner of all design elements of Canadian bank notes.)。
各国均有禁止伪造货币的行政法规范乃至刑法规范。我国1979年刑法就有了货币犯罪,但1991年起才通过立法确立了著作权。按照阁下所列举的法条和您的逻辑,岂非在还没有著作权的时期这些货币就具有了著作权?(补充于07:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC),部分用户误解了此段话的意思,其认为我认为1991年之前产生的作品均不受保护,我并非此意,我国著作权法明文规定著作权保护溯及既往,只要其未超过规定的保护期。但我觉得这句话没必要再作任何增补,我原来的话说得很清楚,“在还没有著作权的时期”。)
申请使用并不能代表什么,《人民币图样使用管理办法》并没有一个字提到著作权,只是说使用要申请。这就好似s:zh:国务院办公厅关于同意在“中国藏学研究珠峰奖”获奖证书上使用国徽图案的复函这个函件一样,难道中央统战部是在找国务院办公厅作著作权的申请吗?但File:中华人民共和国国徽.png国徽图片在Commons上注明的是公有领域。
我在本节#四、货币的版权保护说得很清楚了,如果阁下觉得货币只是公告的附件、版权应该分别讨论,我同意;如果阁下觉得货币不是那个公告的附件需要进一步讨论,我同意;如果阁下觉得这个公告不是行政性质的文件应该进一步讨论,我同意;而且我在一年前#四、货币的版权保护里就说了“即使认为中国人民银行的公告不属于行政方面的官方文件,前述有关《人民币图样使用管理办法》的表述可作为补充说明但不应作为人民币图样受版权保护的理由使用,而应使用其满足独创性门槛且没有法律规定排除对其的保护的理由。”,我很愿意让步到写成“Not OK”,但是理由应该是“其满足独创性门槛且没有法律规定排除对其的保护”,而非《人民币图样使用管理办法》说使用要先申请。
顺带打扰询问@Wcam阁下您对Commons人民币版权状态如何描述的意见。
阁下当前只用一些行政法或刑法的规定,啪地一下不回复这边的讨论,直接在中文维基百科那边说我“篡改”页面,让我着实不好受。况且案涉台湾全景自由问题,台湾著作权法字面意思就是不允许专门贩卖的,之前Commons页面修改的2014年智慧财产权月刊里也明确提到了专门贩卖的例外。WMTW也是近期才在争取当局修改法律或解释,阁下直接就对我从去年10月到现在的工作“气不打一处来”了,实在让我感到遗憾。 Teetrition (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
顺带,《人民币图样使用管理办法》第8条明确提到了审批机构是按照《行政许可法》的规定受理申请和授权,这意味着这是一种公权力机关对公民等的行政许可而非私主体之间的著作权(民事)许可。(《行政许可法》第2条:本法所称行政许可,是指行政机关根据公民、法人或者其他组织的申请,经依法审查,准予其从事特定活动的行为。Teetrition (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
然而就在阁下如此滔天大论,试图一步步蚕食人民币应有的版权保护状态的同时:
1.腾讯网:“中国儿童银行”?2000余张“儿童版人民币”被缴!
2.2003年13期 中国人民银行文告(总第168号)
3.搜狐网:你可能还不知道的版权冷知识
等参考来源都已明确提及(尤其第二个链接)中国人民银行就是人民币的版权持有者,如果按照阁下的道理,那么人民币右上角为啥不写中国印钞造币集团有限公司呢?为啥不写国家金融监督管理总局呢?为啥不写国务院金融稳定发展委员会呢?为啥不写中华人民共和国财政部(或商务部)呢?为啥不写别的国务院各大部门机构呢?为啥非得写中国人民银行呢?如果中国人民银行没有人民币的版权,却还要如此那啥的话,我是不是可以以为这做法跟某些景点的文字涂鸦“某某人到此一游”一样呢?台湾地区FOP问题我不愿意在本页额外说明(毕竟离题),不过正如Hehua那位说过的:参与人数少≠难以取得共识。Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226:分别回复阁下的三个链接:
1. 这个链接中收缴的依据仍然是行政法规范;
3. 相信阁下自己也能看到,这个链接还在说“国旗的著作权应归属于中国人民政治协商会议”,不知阁下是否也认同这一看法。
第二个链接也请阁下仔细阅读,请问这个链接中的公告哪一句是在说“中国人民银行就是人民币的版权持有者”?我把这个公告中的相关段落再引用一遍:

(三)著作权问题
应征设计图稿必须保证拥有充分、完全、排他的著作权。作者保证在全球范围内未曾并永远无权自行或授权任何第三方对图稿进行任何形式的使用或开发。
应征图稿一经采用,其版权归中国人民银行所有,并且可应用到相应的各种形式宣传品上。
应征作者一次性、不可撤消、无条件地将其对图稿著作权全部转让给中国人民银行。
请应征作者自留底稿,所有应征图稿恕不退还。

阁下可以清楚地看到,这一段全部都在说“应征图稿”的著作权而非“人民币”的著作权。应征图稿就是最终发行的货币的样式吗,我想应当不是。人民银行还要在此之上添加相关防伪特征,以及进行一些别的设计。最终产生的纪念币图样应当是最终图样的衍生作品。
这种例子我还能给阁下举一个,中华人民共和国香港特别行政区区旗区徽设计投稿办法细则中说“所有來稿的圖案及版權歸國家所有”,这影响Commons以{{PD-PRC-exempt}}收录了香港区旗(File:Flag of Hong Kong.svg)吗?法律法规也有作者,如果没有著作权法第五条的规定,它也受保护,然而正是第五条的规定让它不能受保护。
我也不想玩这种whataboutism,我之前说得很清楚了,如果阁下认为“行政性文件”的说理不足,改,改,改就是了,但理由应该是“其满足独创性门槛且没有法律规定排除对其的保护”,而绝对不是阁下最初提及的“《人民币图样使用管理办法》”以及行政法、刑法的规定。 Teetrition (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
顺带离题回复阁下长篇大论的一个观点,人民币上写“中国人民银行”是因为《中华人民共和国中国人民银行法》明文规定,是中国人民银行发行人民币,管理人民币流通”,而不是中国印钞造币集团有限公司、财政部、国家金融监督管理总局、国务院金融稳定发展委员会来发行、管理。 Teetrition (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Teetrition香港特别行政区区旗这事,阁下可别不相信,确实曾被“提删上榜”:Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-HK-PR#Files using Template:PD-HK-PR了解一下。 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
提删记录就在这里,我为什么不信呢。不过该条提删是因为彼时香港区旗使用了已被删除的模板{{PD-HK-PR}},现在香港区旗使用的是PRC的豁免模板,查阅链入发现此后应该没有相关提删(如有还烦请告知)。当然,我也可以就此发起提删。
@Liuxinyu970226:另请问阁下此前向人行正式询问此事后是否有结果,如有还烦请告知。谢谢。 Teetrition (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
同时,阁下User:Liuxinyu970226/Renminbi_status所列“Case 3”误解了我的意思。我国著作权法明文规定著作权保护溯及既往,只要1991年施行时按其时间计算尚未过期。阁下在“Case 3”中的表述显非我原意。详细叙述即,我国在1979年即采用刑法对货币的复制进行规制,但在1991年才溯及既往地对作品进行著作权保护,按阁下意思,是否阁下是认为1979年起(而非1991年)起,这些货币就受到了(可能的)著作权保护? Teetrition (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
我的原文也提到了“在还没有著作权的时期”(即对应1979-1991的时期)而非在1991年《著作权法》施行后,此前的作品均不能受保护。因此我认为您@Liuxinyu970226对此的误解及对此lol, so anything 1949-1991 in PRC are totally public domain?的评论有必要修改或删除。
有关溯及力的内容,还是我在去年8月修改的:Special:diff/682385812。原页面表述当时误解了溯及力对应的法律版本和我国修正法律的形式。 Teetrition (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Teetrition恐怕没那么简单,有一些说法来自某个叛变者网站(求打头4个字的,对OA2021了解足够深的都明白那个网站叫啥,而且为保避嫌不予链接,请自行搜索),那边有人从印钞造币公司官网上重传了一组第一版人民币50000元正反面,被那边管理员“待春”指出有可能受70年版权期限(怕不是恰好看见我这个子页面有关美国版权期限的说法)从而押后至2024年1月1日才能进入公有领域,几个小时后才说“算错时间了”改回已进入(中国大陆的)公有领域。 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226:首先声明,本节我最初的观点是“如果认为这些图样只是该文件的附件而应分别讨论它和文件本身可版权性,则这无法解释维基共享为中华人民共和国国旗国徽使用了{{PD-PRC-exempt}}模板。”并且,我最终将中国大陆著作权状态页面货币相关章节由“不可以”修改为“无共识,推定为不可以”,而非修改为“可以”。
疲于长期争论,基于我最初于Wikipedia:zh:User:Wcam/著作权问题探讨#关于图片是否属于「具有立法、行政、司法性质的文件」中所列举的否定一方观点,参考台湾当局的区分主义解释(虽然对大陆无效力但可供参考),以及既往共享资源提删例(有管理员认为{{PD-PRC-exempt}}只及于文字),结合共享资源的预防原则,我决定承认人民币的版权归中国人民银行所有(理由在于其满足独创性要件且无规定证明其公有,我依然坚持《办法》是行政规范),并基于前述理由一同提删香港、澳门之区旗、区徽等类似文件中附件图案。
同时,我维持阁下修改或删除前述页面中Case 3的误解内容的要求。 Teetrition (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
阁下说了这么多是为了什么呢?否认港澳特区旗徽的公有领域特性?正如Wcam所言,香港特区区旗是同时登载在基本法和强制性国家标准中的,具有双重保险般的立法、司法、行政性质保障(我敢断言三者都至少占了一部分,甚至内地某些地方司法部门都很可能至少有一幅香港特区区旗以便处理涉港司法案件)。如果真要提删,我觉得也得是阁下此前曾经提到的某几分中国人民银行公告,毕竟单一“公告”不具备立法、司法及行政性质,必须得在标题中明确提及为“立法公告”、“司法公告”和/或“行政公告”才行(最高人民法院曾经对此有判例,可以仔细找找)。至于中国人民银行令【2019】第2号也不应该提删,因为它的标题后半部分恰好是《人民币图样使用管理办法》,是具备了立法性质的。Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
思来想去那份公告也不应该提删,因为其决定了发行2019版人民币,具有决定性质,而中国人民银行目前也确实是国务院组成部门之一,故此是国家机关的决定,但是其他中国人民银行公告可能有部分应考虑提删,毕竟不是所有公告都能跟决议、决定、命令(更何况“中国人民银行令”明显指向命令的令),至于那份公告下文的纸币硬币样币图案,由于缺乏强制性国家标准佐证其设计规范(阁下不妨去[4]搜索一下,如果能找出人民币鉴别仪通用技术条件人民币现金机具鉴别能力技术规范之外,与人民币相关的强制性国家标准就算我输,而这两份又不针对人民币本身),故此也很可能至少存在著作权界定争议,极左派会相信阁下的“是公有领域的决定一部分,所以这玩意也得是公有领域”,而极右派(例如浅蓝雪和银色雪莉)却也会认为两者不可混谈,必须分别界定版权状态。--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS:就人民币在美国的版权状况问题,我貌似找到一个接近沾边的东西:来自美国第一巡回法院的05-2460号案件。--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
不知道阁下曾经说过的正式就此事向人行咨询的结果如何。我在中国人民银行公众留言页面对此事提问,并于次日接到其电话回复称:该问题更像是法律问题,但其对这一问题进行了讨论,其初步认为虽然法律规定其需要在发行人民币时进行公告,而公告具有行政性质进而不受保护(防止我单方面断定我手动在这句话加个“可能”,即“可能不受保护”),也不影响人民币图样的版权状态。由于该页面看起来仅对其直接主管的问题刊载回复,加之其对其回复语气并不非常确定,不知我的问题是否会刊载在该页面,如有需要我可以文本转写电话录音或提供变音录音。 Teetrition (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
她说“公告具有行政性质进而不受保护”是因为那份公告正文摆明了具有决定性质,的确符合著作权法第五条中的“国家机关的决议、决定、命令”,我相信早晚都会看到至少一份不具备决议、决定、命令性质的公告,所以我敢说不是所有央行公告都是公有领域,同理外交部、国务院国资委乃至中共中央宣传部都存在部分公告三者不沾边,那些公告除非标题包含立法/司法/行政公告字眼,否则也能认为不在著作权法第五条豁免之范围而受版权保护(实不相瞒,我亲眼见过一份符合这种“苛刻条件”的非公有领域公告,在外交部官网上)。 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
就阁下找到的这一案例,恕我愚钝,还望请您详细解释一下其关联性。 Teetrition (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
我只想尽量把讨论范围缩小,而不至于再次见到阁下一而再,再而三地上演“逼问、诱答”戏法。 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
最后,有必要这么拽么?人民币右上角写“中国人民银行”根本不是阁下所谓的“因为某法明文规定,是中国人民银行“发行人民币,管理人民币流通”,而是更简单,甚至幼儿园没毕业的小孩都能明白的一点——中国人民银行在每一张人民币原币,及其依授权发行的样币说明文件上,依法行使其署名权,以彰显其作为货币发行方依法行使的著作权利和邻接权利,就像世界上绝大多数国家和地区的中央银行对其发行的官方货币行使权利一样我之前提到的那些机构,甚至连署名权都无权行使,更遑论著作权问题,署名权乃是一切著作权问题的源泉要素——某不愿透露姓名的WIPO工作人员。Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226 阁下,如果我之前的哪些回复被您认为态度不好或者“拽”,我道歉。但阁下心平气和地想一想,我国《著作权法》是1990年才颁布并实施的,此前的法律法规与政策虽然有稿费或者类似制度的提及,但相关制度并不完善,我知悉1990年著作权法有溯及既往的效力,可以为此前的作品追溯性地授权。但是第一二三四套人民币不可能做预言家,提前坐时光机了解到1991年6月开始中国人民银行的作品会被追溯性地授予署名权,因而中国人民银行要先在上面署名,来“依法行使其署名权,以彰显其作为货币发行方依法行使的著作权利和邻接权利”。
根本不是阁下所谓的“因为某法明文规定,是中国人民银行‘发行人民币,管理人民币流通’”——难道真的没有丝毫是因为这个因素吗? Teetrition (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Teetrition什么时候阁下保证不再逼问、诱答了,什么时候我再就这个问题作进一步回应,社区的共识意见都可以悠意践踏,我觉得用“阁下”称呼您也可能是浪费感情。(不要以为只有您才能拽别的话题,我也可以——就台湾地区FOP问题,几天前我跟WMTW一个雇员沟通了一下,ta告诉我当地的文化部门已在着手介入调查,不排除以释法的方式颠覆您给的规定理解)(有一些国家和地区的货币可能是公有领域的原因——美国:联邦政府职务作品,按美国法典规定不享受著作权利(然而硬币又未必是公有领域,参见判定美国硬币是否可以自由使用一文)、俄乌白、中亚五大斯坦、高加索那仨:苏联时期认定货币乃是国家象征符号,苏联解体后各自民法典继承这一依据)Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
我是否在逼问、诱答,这是阁下自己的理解。即使我保证我不逼问、诱答,也无法保证您不作我就是在逼问、诱答的理解。那我能做到的就是,不再在讨论串中向阁下提问。我想我针对人民币版权一事也没有新的观点需要补充了,请您随意对此问题(包括台湾FOP)在维基共享资源采取任何行动。您如果认为我在践踏共识,您可以随时修改对应页面到没有被我践踏过的状态,或针对我“践踏共识”的行为提报。 Teetrition (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“阁下自己的理解”,当初首先指责逼问诱答的可不是我哦,而是Ericliu,扣我帽子这事够多了,不差这一个。 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
另外找了一下,保加利亚的CRT子页Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Bulgaria#Currency也说要求书面申请授权,所以不可以上传,但也没明说版权保护理据。 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

表情图标 emoji

[edit]

http://www.sziprs.org.cn/szipr/dnf126/content/post_690783.html

"表情图标的表现形式较为简单、设计变量较少,但仍可以通过颜色、线条、图形等元素的搭配、取舍体现创作者的独创性表达,可以构成美术作品。"

"涉案微信表情在圆形黄色面部造型基础上,通过眼部、嘴部、手势等神态的变化来反映人物的不同情绪,生动、形象、富有趣味,在线条、色彩运用等方面体现出一定的个性化选择和独创性表达,具有审美意义,构成美术作品。青曙公司未经许可在其经营的“吹牛”App中使用了与涉案微信表情完全相同的聊天表情,使该软件的用户可以在其个人选定的时间和地点获得涉案微信表情,侵害了二原告享有的信息网络传播权。" RZuo (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

相关案件:https://www.bjinternetcourt.gov.cn/cac/zw/1592530764421.html “微信红包聊天气泡和开启页”具有独创性,构成美术作品。 Wcam (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

如何看待“初代奥特曼未进入公有领域”?

[edit]

[5]大家了解一下,广东省高级人民法院有这么一项裁决:

1、“初代奥特曼”形象未进入公有领域,仍受我国著作权法保护;

这究竟意味着什么,奥特曼不是法人作品而是共同的个人作品?还是大陆公有领域条件悄然间又发生了变化? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

网页中所载判决书第49页(按页面原本页码):

经审查,灵动公司提交证据显示,圆谷公司是《奥特曼》等系列奥特曼影视剧的著作权人,《奥特曼》于1966年在日本上映,主角为初代奥特曼(见附图一)。初代奥特曼形象是由日本美术设计师成田亨于1966年独立创作完成,成田亨在创作初代奥特曼形象时,就该形象的创作与圆谷公司签订了针对该单个项目的合同,且仅在该合同期间领取报酬二者之间在该形象创作期间的关系更接近于委托创作而非劳动关系。结合成田亨在出版的画集中署名为初代奥特曼形象作者的事实应认定初代奥特曼形象作品的作者和原始著作权人为成田亨。灵动公司认为初代奥特曼形象是圆谷公司委托成田亨创作、为成田亨个人作品的意见,有事实依据,本院予以支持。根据我国著作权法关于作品保护期限的规定,自然人的作品,其发表权及相关财产性权利的保护期为作者终生及其死亡后五十年,截止于作者死亡后第五十年的12月31日。成田亨于2002年去世,显然目前初代奥特曼形象作品并未超过法定保护期限,尚未进入公有领域。

据此可知,法院认定“奥特曼形象”(而非奥特曼一系列影视剧,此时“影视剧”看作“形象”的衍生作品)的著作权人为自然人,适用死后+50年的保护期,故“奥特曼形象”未过期。 Teetrition (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/China#Stamps is based on wrong assumptions. The Copyright Law of China (2010) (English version at WIPO) has NO specific paragraph on stamps. As stamps in China are under government protection, it is highly unlikely that individual artists in China can claim copyright. It is therefore most likely that Article 21 (2nd par.) of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China applies: "The term of protection for the right of publication and the rights provided for in Article 10, paragraphs (5) to (17), of this Law in respect of a work where the copyright belongs to a legal entity or other organization or in respect of a work created in the course of employment where the legal entity or other organization enjoys the copyright (except the right of authorship), shall be fifty years [...]". The deliberations on this page (above) are about forgery and re-printing of stamps of China, not about regular copyright. That is also in line with the current map on top of Commons:Stamps, where China has a yellow colour, with the explanation underneath the image Yellow – Copyright of stamps expires 50 years after publication -exactly in line with China's Copyright Law, Article 21. Vysotsky (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I therefore propose the following wording of the paragraph about stamps of China: According to the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (English version at WIPO) "The term of protection for the right of publication and the rights provided for in Article 10, paragraphs (5) to (17), of this Law in respect of a work where the copyright belongs to a legal entity or other organization or in respect of a work created in the course of employment where the legal entity or other organization enjoys the copyright (except the right of authorship), shall be fifty years, and expires on 31 December of the fiftieth year after the first Publication of such work [...]." For stamps older than 50 years use {{PD-China}}. --- Vysotsky (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against the wording of the guideline being changed for the following reasons:
1. You say it's unlikely that individual artists in China can claim copyright on stamps because they a are under government protection, but where is the evidence for that? As you say yourself, The Copyright Law of China has no specific paragraph about stamps. So which law does? If your answer is "none" then the obvious default is that the artists can claim copyright on their works.
2. You cite a "deliberation" (whatever authoritative power that has) to make your argument and then do it with the caveat that it purely applies to "forgery and re-printing of stamps." What makes you think the same law that applies to forgeries would apply to the original stamps? Obviously they are different. Both legally and otherwise. For instance, forgeries are usually illegal. If that mapped over to regular stamps they would be to, which you'd have to agree isn't the case.
3. Why wouldn't the law about forgeries and re-printing of stamps just say it applies to regular stamps if that's the case. I find it hard to believe they would leave mention of regular stamps out of the "deliberation" if it applied to them since that's usually how the law works. The law explicitly says what it covers, and leaves out what it doesn't. The fact that regular stamps aren't mentioned is a clear indication that the "deliberation" doesn't apply to them.
Anyway, IMO what we need here to change the guideline is a legal document that clearly states what the copyright status of stamps is. Not a bunch of speculation about it based on laws or "deliberations" that, as even you admit, have absolutely nothing to do with stamps or even mention them in passing. Otherwise the default position is to assume the artists own the copyrights to their stamp designs. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vysotsky and Adamant1: "stamps in China are under government protection" who tells you? The issuer of Mainland Chinese stamps are (unless if you're considering parallel imports) always the China Post Group Corporation (中国邮政集团有限公司), that's a company, not government agency. PS: This panorama looks very like the points that I recently found in regards to the copyright status of Renminbi, which some users are claiming with their huge microphones that Renminbis are totally public domain, the issuer is Chinese government themselves so {{PD-PRC-exempt}} just applies to em (sic. funny and tragic), see also my draft on this question. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this valuable addition. The English Wiki reads: "China Post, legally the China Post Group Corporation (Chinese: 中国邮政集团有限公司, Pinyin: Zhōngguó yóuzhèng jítuán yǒuxiàn gōngsī), is the state-owned enterprise operating the official postal service of China [...]". About the State Post Bureau, "the Chinese government agency which regulates this enterprise" [China Post] EN-Wiki tells us: "The State Post Bureau is the government agency that regulates China Post, the postal service of the People's Republic of China. The agency used to report to the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and is now under the administration of the Ministry of Transport." "State-owned enterprise", "regulates China Post"; I guess that's sufficient information to prove my point. Vysotsky (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Vysotsky's basic point: logically a stamp is a government work, which means it's the work of a legal person, so 50 years. Same thing if it's a China Post work; still a legal person. The caveat, of course, is that copyright isn't always logical, so if we have any specific text or actual examples of legal decisions about copyright of government-created art, that would take precedence. Until then, though, I would think Chinese stamps would be copyrighted for 50 years after creation. --GRuban (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vysotsky and GRuban Government work? State Post Bureau doesn't have rights to publish and release stamps, based on zh:国家邮政局#职责, the only responsibility of SPB related to stamps is
7. 负责纪念邮票的选题和图案审查,负责审定纪念邮票和特种邮票年度计划。
lit. 7. Be responsible for seleting a title of, and pattern review of commemorative stamps, and for finalizing of annual plans of commemorative stamps and special stamps
How is this been your reason, to claim Mainland China stamps as "Public Domain stamps"? China Post don't use ex-USSR rule to consider their stamps as National Symbols. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vysotsky Moreover, I recently (within 30 minutes) found [6]: A court case judged that, in regard to the 1987 Water Margin stamp series, the designer Zhou Feng owns copyright of its original drafts, and somewhat supported my position that China Post still owns copyright of the released stamp series, included each stamps within it. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this addition, Liuxinyu970226. In the court case you refer to, the China Gold Coin Corporation (and others) had to pay the plaintiff Zhou Feng 500,000 yuan for infringement of his copyright of the Water Margin stamps. This indeed seems to support your position regarding the copyright of modern Chinese stamps. Vysotsky (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

室外标语/语录/手抄法律法规的宣传是否需要标注FoP

[edit]

2002年《最高人民法院关于审理著作权民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第十八条规定:“著作权法第二十二条第(十)项规定的室外公共场所的艺术作品,是指设置或者陈列在室外社会公众活动处所的雕塑、绘画、书法等艺术作品。”

本图为例,在前期与Teetrition的讨论中,我注意到,虽然这些通常被认为是文字作品,但它也完全有可能被认定为平面艺术作品,因为它常常以手写体的形式存在,在一定程度上受到书写者写作风格的影响(比如图中下面的一行“林权改革、利国利民),它可能具有非常明显的艺术性,甚至它的文字内容也可能不是“法律、法规,国家机关的决议、决定、命令和其他具有立法、行政、司法性质的文件”(比如最近看到上世纪90年代将计划生育条例抄写于古建筑之墙面)或者“单纯事实消息”,而是具有一定的创作性。

如果它可以被“合理使用”,那么还有一个问题可以进一步讨论,假设我裁剪照片,或者想其他办法将标语中的部分文字提取出来,那么是不是还能被认定为“合理使用”,因为它们可能被视为“公务作品”,显然并没有明显的潜在市场或价值,符合新版《著作权法》中“不得影响该作品的正常使用,也不得不合理地损害著作权人的合法权益”的界定。--猫猫的日记本 (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

私以为,上方“男女平等 生男生女顺其自然”的标语在文字上不具有独创性,这句话很短而且十分常见。下方“林权改革 利国利民”甚至也是如此,“利国利民”甚至可以算得上是成语,而“林权改革”只是描述XX改革再正常不过的用词。这种标语不用细想便能“量产”(如“改革开放 利国利民”“国企改革 利国利民”“退耕还林 利国利民”)。需要考虑的是,下方“林权改革 利国利民”的标语的字体不像上方男女平等标语字体那般规整,可能可以被认定为美术作品,然而就这幅图整体而言,下面的标语可能不是图片传达的主旨,可能符合Commons:De minimis,即使不符合也可以仅对下方标语模糊处理而符合标准。至于裁剪出下方标语,则此时其版权状态恐怕令人怀疑。 Teetrition (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
那对门联才是最满足“书法作品”的吧。 Njzjz (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Many of the archive.is links for examples of things that are above TOO have broken image links and the archive.fo ones are taking too long to respond, making it impossible to judge whether a Chinese work is above TOO or not. Is anyone able to source these from other locations? Thanks. holly {chat} 19:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]