Template talk:PD-Poland/Archive

Discussion

It should be said, that such photographs are not necessarily public domain. A copyright law stated, that a photograph is a subject of copyright if it has clear copyright notice. Therefeore, if we see, that a photograph was published without a copyright notice - we may assume, that it was not copyrighted (unless it was first published in other place with such a notice). Anyway, it is the copyright holder, who should prove, that a person, who used such photo without a notice, knew it was copyrighted.

Some explanation:

According to the copyright law of Polish People's Republic of July 10, 1952: a photograph is a subject of copyright, if there is a clear copyright notice on the work (Art. 2 §1). There was a similar rule in the previous copyright law of 1926. This rule existed for the works published until 23 May 1994.

According to some court verdicts, general © in a book is enough copyright notice.

The copyright law of 1952 concerned photographs taken by the Polish author, or first published in Poland.

There is a situation possible, when original prints of the photograph had copyright notice, but they were published in some later book without any copyright notice. As a result, somebody who sees them without copyright notice, might not know, that they are copyrighted.
According to the Polish Highest Court verdict (published in OSNC 2003/7-8/110): if there was no copyright notice on later prints, the photograph is still copyrighted, BUT it is the copyright holder to prove, that the person, who used it, had known, that it had been copyrighted. Remember, however, that Court verdicts are not precedent law in Poland, and can only be treated as opinions for future - and note, that this is not a legal law opinion on my side. Pibwl 20:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense

This template is nonsense. Since Poland is member of the EU it is clear that for all photographs formerly PD the 70 years pma term is valid. In all other EU countries these pictures are protected --Historiograf 19:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal considerations

Here (in Polish) is a clarification on why this template is eligible. In short, the Polish law says that the copyright is regained after 1994 by the works which lost that according to the 1952 law. A sentence (dated 06.06.2002, I CKN 654/00, publ. w OSNC 2003/7-8/110) of the Polish Highest Court says that the works which did not enjoy the copyright protection (in particular photographs without the copyright notice) under the 1952 law are not subject to the new copyright act. Alx 11:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion request : kept

Kept:

• Overwhelming positions to keep.
• Furthermore, the legal analysis justifying the "delete" has been messy, sorry:
  • The 1952-1994 Polish law simply ment that the photograph's "point n' click" is not protected by author's right unless explicitly claimed as such (by a copyright notice). Within Berne Convention, not all photographs are necessarily considered as "artistic works" entitled to protection. This is valid, and internationnaly recognized : Poland was part of the Berne Union, remember?
  • When considering copyright matters in international aspects, en:Conflict of laws may interfere, and not all matters are governed by the country where protection is claimed: the country of origin must also be considered for some aspects. Legal doctrine and recent jurisprudence shows that copyright existence and attribution is generally governed by the country of origin. In that case, the work being explicitely excluded from the "Literary and artistic works" category, it has no protection (from the very start) whatever the country.
  • The copyright restorations (EC, but also US) is pointless in this case. It only applies when the work was protected somewhere. When the work is not protected from the very start, or when the protection has disappeared worldwide, there is no resurrection of rights.

Michelet-密是力 07:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

1952 or 1926?

Per w:Polish copyright law, the 1952 law seems to be actually based on Art.3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 (valid until 1952). So shouldn't we change the 1952 to 1926? And due to age I'd expect pre-1926 Polish photos to be PD too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Photographs under Polish Copyright law

Interesting analysis of Photographs under Polish Copyright law (in polish): http://www.archiwa.gov.pl/repository/wydarzenia/Maria_Berman.pdf --Jarekt (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this document before, It's also important in scope of PD-Art reproductions. Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Poland A.J. (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

1994

If a book (containing photos of interest for this project) was published in 1994, how can we tell if it was published before or after the 23 May? Are there any records of which month a book was released? Heck, what to do if a book printing run begun before May 23 and ended after May 23? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

German version

There is a typo in the German version: „des polnisches Urheberrechtsgesetzes“ should be „des polnischen Urheberrechtsgesetzes“. --Kalorie (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. A.J. (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Photos from private archives

There is a controversy about photos from private archives of Commons users. Some people think, that we should not treat such photos as legitimate source.

See: File:Leszek Moczulski 1978 1980.jpg

A.J. (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion debate resolved to keep. A.J. (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Change coat of arms image to SVG

File:Godlo PRL.svg

File:Herb PRL.svg

There is an SVG of the file used at File:Herb PRL.svg. Please replace with the SVG version. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

We are currently using File:Godlo PRL.svg Which seems to e better than File:Herb PRL.svg. --Jarekt (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Herb PRL is more accurate. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

URAA a sprawa polska

Commons:Bar#URAA_a_sprawa_polska: zapraszam do dyskusji. A.J. (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

URAA

It seem to me that all PD-Polish files were published in Poland before 1994 and were in public domain in Poland in 1996. So all files meet requirements of Template:PD-1996. As a result, we can merge this template with Template:PD-1996. Also for files published before 1923 we should add Template:PD-1923 to the individual files, or through something like {{PD-Polish|1923}} which would add Template:PD-1923 instead of default Template:PD-1996. Any objections? --Jarekt (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not merge this template, it's still of use to determine the source/validity of these images. PD-1996 may be added as an additional information template though. Moving this to a new template shoud not be done without reviewing every single image to clean out mistagged ones or those without information about first publication. There may still be some cases left where an image may have been published in Poland first but was of foreign origin and it's still protected there. --Denniss (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that some of the images in this category might not be meeting the requirements of {{PD-Polish}} and should be tagged and deleted. My point is that all the images that DO meet requirements of {{PD-Polish}} also meet requirements of {{PD-1996}}, and that fact should be reflected in the template. I do not think those two issues are related and I do not think we should use {{PD-1996}} as a tag for tagging images that were verified. --Jarekt (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

By "merging" you mean that PD-1996 or 1923 would be added to PD-Polish template by including in code? A.J. (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking, about approach used by {{PD-old-100-1923}} and many new templates, where {{PD-Poland}} and {{PD-Poland|1996}} would be merged with {{PD-1996}} and would display:

This photograph is in the public domain because according to the Art. 3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 of the Republic of Poland and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are assumed to be in the public domain in Poland. This work is in the public domain in the United States because it meets three requirements: it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), 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, it was in the public domain in its home country (Poland) on the URAA date (1 January 1996). To uploader: Please provide where and when the image was first published.

and {{PD-Poland|1923}} would be merged with {{PD-1923}} and display simpler and less confusing:

This photograph is in the public domain because according to the Art. 3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 of the Republic of Poland and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are assumed to be in the public domain in Poland. This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929. To uploader: Please provide where and when the image was first published.

We can also add a publication_date parameter which would allow us to pick correct text automatically and remove complications for <1978 and >1978 cases from the {{PD-Poland|1996}} template. --Jarekt (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks nice,  Support. A.J. (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems that merging text explainting copyright status in US is neccessary to stop deletion requests like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Agnieszka Duczmal Polish conductor.jpg. A.J. (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Opps, I forgot to carry out the proposed changes. Done now. Please help translate parts of the message into Polish and few other languages. --Jarekt (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment Also see the discussion at COM:VPC which shows that the current wording of {{PD-1996}} is wrong. This affects the wording used in this template. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. If current wording of {{PD-1996}} is wrong that would be quite a problem since a lot of images are using it and all of them will need to get reevaluated if the template is to be changed. --Jarekt (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Published?

Please see the discussion here. In particular, I think that this template may need rewarding, as nowhere in the source documents I can find a rationale to support the word "published". It seems to me that even unpublished photographs are affected by this template. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned here: The wording of the template is the same as at pl:Szablon:PD-PRL. There are miles of discussion about this template at Polish Wikipedia and they did not extended its scope to the images without proof of publication (or distribution in some form). The way I remember the argument goes like this: Many articles in 1926 and 1952 laws relate to conditions needed for a photograph to LOOSE copyright protection. Unfortunately for all the photographs that LOST it copyright protection was restored with Art. 124 of 1994 law. pl:Szablon:PD-PRL and template:PD-Polish relies on the fact that although Art. 124 restored copyright to works that LOST it ("do których prawa autorskie według przepisów dotychczasowych wygasły"), according to Art. 3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 of the Republic of Poland and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 photographs that meet those narrow conditions never enjoyed copyright protection in the first place so they could not loose it ("Prawo autorskie do utworów fotograficznych [] istnieje pod warunkiem, że zastrzeżenie wyraźne uwidoczniono na odbitkach."). So the word "Published" come from Art. 3 of 1926 law which talks about showing copyright notice on mechanical copies and likely can be extended to other copying processes than book or journal publication. However other forms distributions might be harder to prove. --Jarekt (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:PD-Polish/pl

Cześć! Zgodnie z zasadą be bold pozwoliłem sobie zmienić odrobinę treść zalinkowanego powyżej szablonu; nie wiem, czy moje zmiany są jasne (skonkretyzowałem nazwy ustaw, uprościłem zapis dotyczący URAA i poprawiłem zapis dotyczący domeny publicznej w Polsce). Daj znać, co sądzisz o aktualnym brzmieniu tego szablonu; gdyby coś było nie tak, daj znać (zgodnie z prośbą, dodaję tę stronę do obserwowanych). Pozdrawiam, odder (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Większość zmian chyba poprawiła jasność szablonu. Jedyna rzecz której nie lubiłem to pierwsze zdanie tekstu licencji zaczynające się od "Należy domniemywać, iż". Wróciłem "domniemywanie" na koniec licencji (forma także używana na pl:Szablon:PD-PRL. Reszta brzmi prawidłowo. Zwłaszcza podobają mi się poprawki do tekstu z Template:PD-1996: ten szablon jest mało czytelny po angielsku, i jeszcze mniej czytelny po przetłumaczeniu. Użyłem twój tekst w Template:PD-1996/pl. Inny drobiazg to "Stany Zjednoczone" / "Stany Zjednoczone Ameryki": "Stany Zjednoczone" są krótsze i jest to wersja używana w artykule pl:Stany Zjednoczone. Sadze ze powinniśmy do niej wrócić. --Jarekt (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Dzięki za odpowiedź. Nazwy Stany Zjednoczone użyłem dlatego, że jest to oficjalna nazwa państwa (The United States of America), ale przyznaję, że rzeczywiście brzmi to dość kiepsko, więc jeśli przywrócisz poprzednią wersję, to nie będę protestować. To nieszczęsne zdanie początkowe zmieniłem z kolei dlatego, że w polskim systemie prawnym nie istnieje coś takiego jak domena publiczna; jest to wyłącznie kalka, jaką posługują się środowiska powiązane z ruchem wolnej kultury/wolnej wiedzy (jak Koalicja Otwartej Edukacji; przy okazji, pojęcie domeny publicznej wykorzystywane przez instytucje administracji publicznej jest od niego bardzo różne, ale to temat na inną dyskusję).

W Polsce dzieła mogą nie podlegać ochronie prawnoautorskiej, ale nie mogą należeć do domeny publicznej; w tej sytuacji możemy więc jedynie domniemywać, że zdjęcia objęte tym szablonem należc do domeny publicznej (bo takiej konstrukcji polskie prawodawstwo nie przewiduje). Nie mam pomysłu, jak inaczej zmienić brzmienie tego pierwszego zdania, więc edytuj śmiało. odder (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Zawsze myślałem the to "domniemywanie" to "może jest w domenie publicznej a może nie nie jest" bo: ktoś wciąż ma prawa autorskie (z jakiegoś powodu), albo nie znaleźliśmy pierwszej publikacji (tylko drugą czy trzecią) a pierwsza publikacja miała (c). Nigdy nie pomyślałem o interpretacji ze "w polskim systemie prawnym nie istnieje coś takiego jak domena publiczna". Może coś w stylu "To zdjęcie nie podlegać ochronie polskich praw autorskich (należy do domeny publicznej), ponieważ..." albo "To zdjęcie nie podlegać ochronie polskich praw autorskich i należy do domeny publicznej, ponieważ...". Także przenoszę ta dyskusje na Template talk:PD-Polish by więcej osób mogło pomoc oraz by pozostało wytłumaczenie ostatnich zmian. --Jarekt (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Powyższa dyskusja została skopiowana z User talk:Jarekt. --Jarekt (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Please add the noinclude category Category:Templates related to Poland

Category:Templates related to Poland. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Jarekt (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

language links

{{Editprotected}} There is no language link on the template, but {{PD-Polish/lang}} exists. It should be added to the layout page. tacsipacsi (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Most license templates, like {{CC-by-sa-3.0}}, no longer use language links. They do not work for logged-in users (clicking on them does not do anything), and are not necessary for not logged in users who can select language for a whole page in the drop-down box on the left. --Jarekt (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that is that you do not necessarily see the text in the language you know best. For example, I see this template in English, but my interface is set to Swedish. Elderly Swedish people (who went to school before WWII) often know German better than English and might prefer to see the German version instead, at least as long as there is no Swedish version. Also, a Swedish person who is looking at this particular template might speak Polish better than English, especially if the person is looking for Polish photos. Without language links, there is no trivial way to change the language. Adding "?uselang=pl" to the location bar isn't trivial for a lot of people. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that they can be useful in some situations, but they no longer work. Try File:Motorway Hungary.jpg, it has 2 templates with language links. When I am logged in, clicking on those links does not do anything. When I am not logged-in the links work, but I also have option of choosing language through drop-down box on the left. That is why all major license templates stopped using them. --Jarekt (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The links work for me, both when I'm logged in and when I'm not logged in. Browser problem? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the language links were bad. I've corrected. tacsipacsi (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it was related to browser - it is the same issue in Firefox, Chrome and IE (I just tried them). Other users commented on that for a while, that is why they were removed from most license templates. --Jarekt (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting DR

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Walenty Maćkowiak Sejm.jpg --Jarekt (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Works of art

I think that PD-Polish should be modified and extended. According to Art. 20. p. 2, 4 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People's Republic of Poland some works of art were in Public domain, especially those displayed in "public places" or "in such way that everyone can admire".

According to Art. 23 of law of May 23, 1994: "It shall be permitted to use free of charge the work, which has been already disseminated for purposes of private use without the permission of the author." BurgererSF (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Commons is not "private use". Public works exempt is covered by "freedom of panorama" {{FOP}} (they are not "public domain" though). PD-Polish is very specific template which is not meat to cover all possible free works under Polish law; but only pre-1994 not restricted *photographs*. Generally: for Polish public domain one should use {{PD-old-70}}. In my opinion it would be better to change it's name to "PD-PolishPhoto" or similar. A.J. (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Coat of arms

It should be replaced by: File:Coat of Arms of Poland (1955-1980).svg. ARvєδuι ⁺ 13:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I am looking at the current and proposed Coat of arms and I can not see the difference other than the brightness of red. I prefer the current one. Any other opinions? --Jarekt (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• 
  current
• 
  proposed

Other types of works?

There's a tricky interpretation issue with the laws linked from the template (dated 1926 and 1952), namely that "as nearly as I can tell (I am a Polish native reader), the separate mention for photograph notices is a clarification, and should not be construed as indicating that only photographs are to be treated that way." (User:mareklug on #wikimedia-commons IRC channel). Can we consider this alternative interpretation? --YurB (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Юрій Булка: This is quite interesting, as it would open the door to uploading more files here. But looking at [1] the text speaks of "works of photography or works created in a way similar to photograph," such as phonographs, photocopies, mechanical notes (?)... So yes, it is a bit broader, through not a carte blanche for anything. I'd tentatively treat it as "for images created using machinery". Would be good to hear from Marek. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Term of copyright

Also very interesting question what is term of copyright in Poland de factum? For example in Ukraine current term is 70 years PMA but it applied only for works that had no 50 PMA in 2001 year. But URAA' restoring affected only works PMA >= 1969 because 25 PMA before 1994. I see Poland have likely history of changes copyright terms but I see only current 70 PMA in template. Artem.komisarenko (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Artem.komisarenko: I am not sure I understand your question; I am afraid I just can't follow your logic ("because 25 PMA before 1994"???). A while ago I wrote User:Piotrus/PolishCopyright, as well as w:Copyright law of Poland. Would they answer you question? If not, I recommend you ask at w:WT:POLAND, or better, at pl:Wikipedia:Kawiarenka/Ogólne (I thought there was an English section there, but I can't find it; someone would move your post/reply to it anyway). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for my bad English. I'll try again. Ukraine law say 25 years PMA before 1994 (i. e. 1969 in 1994). In 1994 it was increased to 50 PMA (exclude works that became already free because 25 PMA). Then in 2001 50 PMA was increased to 70 PMA (exclude works that was already free because 50 PMA, 25 PMA from pre-1994 law was just ignored in 2001). So, currently used copyright terms for Ukraine is very complicated and it's result of interference of few laws. I see Poland has likely history of copyright terms changes (50 PMA in 1994 then 70 PMA in 2001) but it's still question for me: is there are likely exclude rules for works that was already free in 1994 or 2001? Artem.komisarenko (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe you ask whether changes in Polish copyright law were retroactive. The answer is yes, they were: per Article 124.1 of Polish copyright law (English version available if you prefer) 70-year term applies to 1) all new works, 2) all works whose copyright term did not expire as of 1994, 3) all works whose copyright term expired by 1994. Thus the new 1994 law does not apply only to photos as they were simply not copyrighted before 1994 — NickK (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I think NickK is talking only about the photos that weren't marked with copyright notice when they were published. --YurB (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

NickK is correct that the retroactive clause if 1994 law (Art. 124.1.3) apples to works whose copyrights expired under earlier laws. The thing about photographs published without copyright notice is that they were never a subject to 1926 and 1952 laws according to articles mentioned in the template, so they do not meet the requirement of Art. 124.1.3 of 1994 law for restoration of the copyright. --Jarekt (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Big thanks NickK, Jarekt. So, to be sure, do I understand correctly that books (for example) have 1994 - 50 = 1954 year for copyright guillotine? Is there shortest term by laws before 1994 (like 25 PMA in Ukraine before 1994?)? Is it retroactive (shortest term if it is)? Artem.komisarenko (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Books are not subject to this template as this only applies to photographs. Individual photographs from the books are OK as according to the law they were never copyrighted and their rights were not restored. There might be impossible to generalize from the laws captured in this template to laws of other countries, like Ukraine. --Jarekt (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Artem.komisarenko: Just to clarify: photos published without copyright notice before 1994 = use this template, anything else: copyrighted for 70 years pma (the law is retroactive and has no shorter term), use {{PD-old-70}} — NickK (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

rewrite by Jameslwoodward

I have just reverted a total rewrite of English version of the template by User:Jameslwoodward who in this edit "clarified" (according to comment) current text to: "This photograph is in the public domain
(a) because according to the Art. 3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 of the Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) created before 1942 are public domain in Poland
or
(b) according to Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are assumed public domain in Poland." I do not know where the new dates and details are coming from. The template text remained basically the same for last decade and it is equivalent to the text used since the begining on Polish Wikipedia. Were there some discussions about new legal theories, if so it was not discussed here. Also Art. 3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 does not mention year 1942 at all. Where are those new details coming from an why there was no discussion here about such a major rewrite? --Jarekt (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Jarekt, sorry, I probably should have discussed it here first. However, except for adding the 1942 date, all of the facts (and words) are from the old version -- I simply split it into two parts for clarity as it covers two different laws and circumstances. The 1942 date comes from the fact that under the 1926 law a photograph had a 10 year copyright. Therefore, any photo taken before 1942 would fall under the 1926 law, while one taken in 1942 or later would still be under copyright in 1952 and, therefore, subject to the longer term of the 1952 law. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Jim the argument is that the same provision in both laws says that photographs that meet the listed conditions were not under copyright law at all. When the law changed in 1994 it retroactively extended copyright (Art. 124) to 70 years pma when the copyrights expired under the old law, but not for files that were never under the copyright law. May be this part should be explained somewhere. In the past it was explained at this talk page bit now it is being archived and not so easy to spot. Your changes are gutting the argument. However I also object to expanding the scope of existing license templates. If there is some new law that we can use to claim an image is in PD we should make a new template for it. --Jarekt (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think that the template would be easier to understand if the two laws were split as I did, but I don't think it's important enough to spend any more time on it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Jim if the template is not easy to understand I am fine with improving it; however splitting 1926 and 1952 laws is not (in my opinion) improving matters. The wording of both laws is almost identical and we are not using different rationale from each one. One clarification I would like to see is to spell out somewhere why 1994 law did not retroactively extended copyrights to those photographs, like it did to the ones that were not published but where taken before 1942. Let me ping @Piotrus: , as he was involved in this template longer than I. --Jarekt (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The wording may be similar, but conflating the two means that the occasional user (like me) must understand that the rule didn't change (much?). Better, I think to split them as I did, so that knowing the date which matters, you need look only at the law that matters and not both. Also, as I understand it, the 1926 law put a ten year life on all photos, so, as I said above, a pre-1942 image is PD whether or not it had a notice. That is a great deal easier to prove than no-notice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Pre-1942 images are not PD, as their copyrights were retroactively restored by 1994 law. The exceptions are files that meet {{PD-old-70}} and the ones that were published and meet current PD-Polish requirements. That is why nobody created in the last 15 years a license template for pre-1942 images based on that law. --Jarekt (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Unfornately there is wrong CoA. The Copyright Act was enacted and signed after 1989. Aight 2009 (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Layout update request

{{Edit request}} I updated the template's layout sandbox with a missing Coat of Arms of the Polish People's Republic and did some minor technical work. Now the layout reflects both republics. Please update Template:PD-Polish/layout source with Template:PD-Polish/layout/sandbox. Thanks! --Rezonansowy (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jarekt, Fry1989, Arvedui89, Aight 2009, and 79.186.165.13: I think that covering both CoAs ultimately resolves the problem. --Rezonansowy (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Polish coat of arms 1919-1927

Rezonansowy, for last 14 years {{PD-Polish}} and w:pl:Szablon:PD-PRL had only one Coat of Arms (COA) (w:pl:Szablon:PD-PRL still does). I realize that in the time period covered by the template several different COAs were used, and my guess someone picked the one used the longest. The template with 2 COAs is more correct but looks more cluttered to me, as I do not think many people outside of Poland would be able to tell them easily apart. I would vote to stick to a single COA, however, I would be interested in hearing opinions of other users, especially from Poland. If there is consensus for change, I will change it. --Jarekt (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

BTW, The new look would be as follows:

@Jarekt: Thanks for providing the first CoA of the Second Polish Republic above. I used version for English Wikipedia as it was used longer. Please note that the template from Polish Wikipedia is wrong as its title and CoA refer only to the People's Republic of Poland, which was completely different country than the Second Republic of Poland. The thing is that even these two CoAs are similar, they refer to two different republics and different law systems. Leaving any of them without an indication is simply a mistake, it is incorrect and confuses readers as they see two different republics in text and only one coat of arms next to the text. --Rezonansowy (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not very familliar with the discussion here, but for sure File:Godlo PRL.svg is a bad choice for anything. It contains of a shield with a default cc0000 red tone. Choose whatever you choose, but these are IMHO correct in terms of colours and shield shape at least (still not perfect though, as Poland has a somewhat 3d coat of arms. Unique but very unpractical). Aʀvєδuι ⁺ 17:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• 
  1919–1927
• 
  1927–1939
• 
  de iure noone knows
  de facto old one without crown
• 
  de facto 1944–1980,
  de iure 1955–1980
• 
  1980–1990 the same design but other shade of red per analogiam to flag's shade change. No accurate file
• 
  since 1990

@Arvedui89: Thanks for the hint! If the is issue is only about colors then no problem. I updated the image to reflect the right colors. It seems that the previous image is also tagged as deprecated. Now should be OK. --Rezonansowy (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

We have such a huge mess with our symbols in Poland that it is hardly understandable. First official CoA was adopted in 1919 in the same law as the flag. None of the colours were described in any way. Shade of red of the flag was described as crimson few years later in a semi-official document. New law was passed in 1927 - with new CoA and a shade of red described literally as vermilion. Under the communist rule symbols weren't regulated since 1955, and at the same time they used simillar shield and an eagle to the previous one, while the crown was dropped and gold border removed. In 1955 this version was officially adopted. In 1980 red tone (on the flag of course) was described in a sophisticated manner as kinda-crimson. In 1989/1990 crown was restored, shield shape was slightly modified as were minor details. Finito. Aʀvєδuι ⁺ 06:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Arvedui89: And they are going to change it again now... – https://bezprawnik.pl/nowe-godlo-polski-2018/. --Rezonansowy (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Someone chose a wrong version of People's Republic of Poland coat of arms. Try Coat of arms of Poland (1955-1980).svg. Aʀvєδuι ⁺ 05:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Interwiki

removed from article; please dont put it there, as otherwise all images with this template get a interwiki there ;o)

en:Template:PD-Poland

--10:40, 2 April 2005 Sicherlich

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jarekt (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

CoA must not have thecrown - it's People's Republic of Poland!

Image:Herb_PRL.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.186.165.13 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 16 December 2007‎ (UTC) --79.186.165.13 12:19, 16 December 2007

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jarekt (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)