Template talk:PD-Russia/en

Юридическое лицо

I’ve changed “Copyright body corporate” to “Corporate body copyright”, but then found that the “Legal personality” article says “body corporate” (although “Corporate body” also redirects there). --AVRS (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

URAA effects

{{Editprotected}} Since Jan.1, 2013 (URAA effects) PD-Russia is more suitable then PD-old-70 for works published in Russia. So the statements

Use '''{{tl|PD-old-70}}''' instead of this tag:
* if author of this work died before June 22, 1941,<sup>[1]</sup> or
* if this work was originally published anonymously or under the pseudonym before January 1, {{ #expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} - 70 }} and the name of the author did not become known during 70 years after publication.

should be removed from the template. Alex Spade (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

@Alex Spade: Could you please clarify whether if this change should be done on January 1 or immediately? --whym (talk) 10:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This change could be done after Jan.1, 2014. Alex Spade (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done whym (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional case for anonymous work

{{Editprotected}} Plz, add after p.2 additional statement (for example, see en:Template:PD-Russia).

# This work was originally published anonymously or under the pseudonym between January 1, 1943 and January 1, 1944, and the name of the author did not become known during 70 years after publication.

Alex Spade (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done whym (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Small logical fix

{{Editprotected}} Plz, replace p.1 by more correct statement.

# The author of this work died before January 1, {{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}-70}}, did not work during the [[Great Patriotic War]] and did not participate in it.

Alex Spade (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done thanks for your help. whym (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

PD-anonymous date calculation

@Whym: Did you intentionally remove the PD-anonymous date calculation #expr here? (If so, Commons:Anonymous works#Russia should be updated.)    FDMS  4    11:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This is my fall (see section Additional case for anonymous work above). ;-) Alex Spade (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} Plz, replace p.3 by more correct statement.

# This work was originally published anonymously or under the pseudonym between January 1, 1943 and January 1, {{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}-70}}, and the name of the author did not become known during 70 years after publication.

Alex Spade (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done thank you for finding this out. whym (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

2016 Update

{{Editprotected}} The several updates for this tag are needed. Alex Spade (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There were parts of new code for tag. They were moved and implemented in Template:PD-Russia/en/sandbox. See description of changes below

Alex can you just do the changes at Template:PD-Russia/en/sandbox? --Jarekt (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thx for your suggestion. Alex Spade (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Description of changes

1. The references for the Russian law were corrected. Both articles must be mentioned. First article (1281) for new points 1,2 and 4. Second article (6) for points 3 and 5.
2. Statement about works of known authors was updated on January 1, 2016 and freezed on January 1, 1946 because of URAA-effects.
3. 2nd statement about anonymous/pseudonymous works was updated (freezed on January 1, 1946) because of URAA-effects.
4. Statement about corporate body copyright was corrected:
   • Film rights had passed to studios since 1929 only.
     • Respective commentary mentioned cimena films only, because first Soviet television film were shown in 1931 or later.
   • TV/radio-programs rights had passed to broadcasting organizations since 1964.
5. Statement about compliance with US law was added.
6. Links to Russian texts of laws were removed. The template became too lengthy and there is no problem to find these texts.

Alex Spade (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Jarekt (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

See also Template talk:PD-Russia#template correction I think that there are a few errors in the text now. --Bjarlin (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: See also the section below that: Template talk:PD-Russia#removed links to the Russian law texts. --Bjarlin (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Small fix for escheat

{{Editprotected}} There is mispint in code for wikilink to escheat. Must be [[:en:Escheat|escheat]]. Alex Spade (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done, Opps, those were my fat fingers. --Jarekt (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Phrase about films

{{Editprotected}} Plz, adjust point 5 of template:

# This work is non-amateur cinema or television film (or shot, or fragment from it), which was first shown between January 1, 1929<sup>[b]</sup> and January 1, 1946.

Alex Spade (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Jarekt (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Small fix

{{Editprotected}} Plz, replace phrase

and article 6 of Law No. 231-FZ 

by

and articles 5 and 6 of Law No. 231-FZ 

Article 5 runs, that author by law is defined at the date of creation - it is very important for cases, when author can be legal person (not natural person) - for example for non-amateur cinema or television films. Alex Spade (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Sealle (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Update for films and new point for TASS-reports

{{Editprotected}} The several updates for this tag are needed. See new Template:PD-Russia/en/sandbox.

Description of changes

1. More accurate description of point 5 for films.
2. New point 6 for reports of TASS, ROSTA, and KarelfinTAG. For more information see ru:Шаблон:PD-Russia/doc/ТАСС (sorry, in Russian so far).

Alex Spade (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Awesome! Thank you! rubin16 (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa what just happened

• @Rubin16: Why was the text of "This work is information report (including photo report), which was created by employee of TASS, ROSTA, or KarelfinTAG as part of that person’s official duties between July 10, 1925[3] and January 1, 1951, and also which was first released in the stated period or was not released until August 3, 1993." (from the sandbox version) added? TASS photographs, from any time, are NOT public domain by default. What is the legal basis for such drastic template change? You can search the TASS website all you want, but one thing you will NOT find is any statement about photos being in the public domain. Шаблон:PD-Russia/doc/ТАСС specifically says that the laws listed in the template were repealed in 1992 (as such, the PD-Soviet template is depreceated). It's no secret that users on Russian Wikipedia have long been looking for a loophole for the prolonged copyright terms to deal with, but instead of doing the right thing and asking their government to change copyright policy and realease historic photos under free licences for commons, they've been going after Commons instead, attacking the burden of proof for PD status and spamming the site's PD-Russia categories with unfree files. Many have already tried to read way too much inbetween the lines into PD-Russia-exempt to get things not legally covered by the scope under the tag (such as official portraits of politicians, which are copyrighted and owned by TASS and RIA novosti and charge for use). As far as I am aware, there has been no discussion and no justification for the addition (and the sly way that photo reports, which are completely copyrighted and have no basic for automatic PD status based on creation date solely due to TASS origin, are lumped in with basic text/announcement reports that could fall in with PD-Russia-exempt's basic news clause). Until further discussion, that point of the tag should be removed IMMEDIATLY to prevent a disasterous mass-upload of MORE copyrighted Russian photos to Commons. Furhtermore, I strongly reccommend that we clamp down on copyright ignorance (especially the misconception of Soviet works being public domain and that it is acceptable to assume something was published early enough simply due to it's age when a specific publication date is unknown), which is prolific among the Russian members of Commons, many of whom have previously expressed outrage and a strong desire to "fix" the fact that they are required to prove free licence status (ie, find early enough publication of works they upload) of such photos. Even after the latest drama with an admin being exposed for sockpuppeting (not to mention the fact that said admin and their sockpuppet ranted against measures to remove unfree Russian files on Commons), we can expect further things like this from Russian wikipedians desprate for their historic photo to be on Commons until they are under truely free licences (either by virtue of copyright expiration or a release by the government), and ergo we should be more careful when dealing with these matters.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • You can find discussion with references to modern legislation, court practice and juridical literature on ru:Википедия:Форум/Архив/Авторское_право/2020/10#РОСТА_и_ТАСС_как_автор. Alex Spade (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • PD-Soviet template was deprecated by other matter (by its 25 copyright term, and lack of 50 years retroactive protection).
  • The updated point 5 and new point 6 are based on articles 5-6 of Law No. 231-FZ of the Russian Federation of December 18, 2006 (the Implementation Act for Book IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
  • Article 5 specifies that author is defined by legislation at the time of creation (regardless of subsequent changes of legislation). Author of TASS, ROSTA, KarelfinTAG, or APN (RIA) reports from 1925 to 1992 is respective agency - legal person.
  • Article 6 specifies term of protection for works by legal person as author. Alex Spade (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Reports mentioned in {{PD-Russia}} have nothing in common with reports mentioned in {{PD-RU-exempt}}.
  • As before the publication date (any evidence of release before 1951, or clear evidence of the first (exactly) release after that) is still important for points 5-6. As before it is not enough to assume PD-status on date of creation only. Alex Spade (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• @PlanespotterA320 why do you start generalisations and personal attacks? I don't think that is the right way to have discussions here, please, be more respectful. There was a link to the materials about this change above, do you have comments about the substance of the evidence provided here? and I think you can't say that me or Alex Spade were ever involved in creative pushing to licensing rules, it is vice versa, I think we are/were among the top sysops in terms of files deletions in ru.wiki. Comment about Sealle is completely irrelevant here. rubin16 (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • And significant change to the template (like the one just made) should be preceeded by a lenghty period of comment on COMMONS, not solely confined to Russian Wikipedia or any other echo-chamber that is unquestioning supportive of such mental gymnastics. At the VERY LEAST, the Wikimedia Foundation should formally request an official statement from TASS or the Russian government to clarify the issue.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
    • TASS or the Russian government opinions could not change court decisions. If you like to start more wide discussion, or to ask for comment from TASS/RIA or the Russian government, feel free to do it. At the same time position of TASS/RIA has already set in respective court practice - that TASS(APN/RIA) as legal person is author by law (and initial copyright holder) of works by its employee. There are also enough both ru- and non-ru- sysops on Commons, which are not connected with ru-wiki directly and which you could ask for reviewing of my or rubin16 statements and actions. Alex Spade (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I would repeat once again if you please: do you have any substantial claims to the evidence provided to the implemented change? Asking WMF to address the government is completely irrelevant here again, lengthy comment itself isn’t the goal, too. And of course you can appeal to others but you still need to show the points of disagreement. Now you are just blaming people who care about copyright and quality of the content a lot, make irrelevant proposals and comparisons to blocked users who have no connection with me or Alex. I wouldn’t participate in the thread unless you start contributing here by arguments and facts, please. PS: sorry if my English seems not polite somewhere, I didn’t mean to attack you, I am just not a native speaker (while you are and while your tone is not polite from my point of view) rubin16 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)