User talk:Švitrigaila

Image Tagging Image:HabemuspapamPXII.ogg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:HabemuspapamPXII.ogg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think {{PD-ineligible}} is sufficient. However we do need a source where you have the recording from. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please send me Habemus papam Pius XI. Achille Ratti! czinitz@neobee.net

I don't have it. Švitrigaila 20:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Seal of Pope Gregory VII.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 17:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Habemus Papam once again

Hi. I have marked the recordings of "Habemus Papam" with "no source" because I think that they are copyrightable. While the text of "Habemus Papam", which is centuries old, is clearly in the public domain, the recordings themselves aren't. Otherwise we could upload any recording from whatever source and of any author if the recorded matter was not copyrightable (i.e. recordings of bird-singing made by ornithologists etc.). I think the authors of such recordings can still claim copyright. Just like photographs of public domain objects are copyrightable, so are sound recordings. --Botev (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's not fair and you didn't have to erase them. It’s not the first time I ask what licence is the best for those soundtracks. You can read it here. I was given Pius XII's file by the owner of a website a long time ago with the permission to use it freely. I allready owned the other ones before. Of course I couldn’t tell the name of the person who made each recording, but I’m sure those people couldn’t prove they did. Every proclamation were made before a crowd of several thousand persons, each one able to record it. I can’t understand why you erased them if no-one does (and can) claim to be the author of them. I think you must prove there is an author before assuming there is one, or else you can erase this picture because you don’t know the name of the worker who diseigned the bus. Švitrigaila (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The example with the picture of the bus is not suitable here - it was taken in a public place, so the bus designer cannot claim copyright (freedom of panorama applies). However, the author of the picture can claim copyright and that is - in fact - what he or she did - the picture is on a free license but the author has retained copyright! And in the same way, these recordings are copyrightable. However, if you are sure that the author cannot be identified, you can treat them as anonymous works. That means that you can use {{Anonymous work}} for recordings that are more than 50 years old (up to Pope John XXIII, that is). I am afraid that the legal status of the newer recordings is, in the best case, unclear. For that reason I think we shouldn't use them on Commons. Purely theoretically, I believe that Vatican authorities could claim copyright here, as the recordings were made in Vatican. --Botev (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course the recordings were made on a public place : they were made on Saint Peter’s Square. I can’t see how the Vatican itself could claim copyright. The Vatican is a country. I can’t figure, for example, that if I recorded a sound on a public place in a city of France, the French State could claim copyright of my work. And of course the author of each recording can’t be identified since hundred thousands people stood there and everyone can have make it. No one can claim to have made it. For example, let’s take the last one, Benedict XVI's recording. The voice of Cardinal Medina Estévez was firt taken in a microphone, then send to loudspeakers, then broadcasted all over the place and finally recorded by someone standing here (with modern mobile phones, everybody can do that an does). So how can you clearly claim an author can claim copyright ? Does the technician who set on the Cardinal’s microphone can claim copyright too? Švitrigaila (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright laws are set by countries. If you make a recording in France, Germany, Vatican or somewhere else, then you own the copyright because those countries have adopted laws that say so. In case of an anonymous work whose neither author nor publisher can be identified I believe it is still up to the country of origin (in our case Vatican) to set a law as to whom the copyright belongs. So, theoretically Vatican authorities can set a law that the copyright of these recordings would belong to some of the Vatican institutions. However, because Vatican has chosen to sign the Berne Convention, anonymous recordings that are more than 50 years old are in the public domain by virtue of that convention. The copyright status of younger anonymous recordings is unclear until Vatican adopts a law as to what to do with them.

The technician who sets the microphone cannot claim copyright unless the Cardinal's words are recorded, in which case the copyright for that particular recording would belong to the institution the technicians work for (because so says the copyright law in Vatican and the vast majority of other countries).

Also, what you say implies that all recordings that might have been made of the Habemus papam declaration are alike and indistinguishable. I don't totally agree. Just like two photographs taken at the same time and at the same spot can be different (and that is why they are copyrightable) so can recordings. You can just as well say that thousands of people could have taken photographs or made films of the Cardinal but that doesn't mean that those photographs or films are not eligible for copyright. By the same token, the fact that a recording was made in a public place doesn't mean that it is in the public domain for that reason. --Botev (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If I follow the first part of your argumentation, those soundtracks must be erased because there could be a law establishing a copyright for them? That means that not only the copyright holder is hypothetic, the law establishing it also is hypothetic. Up to now, I thought those edits were made for the respect of existing laws to avoid problems with their beneficiaries, not to protect general principles with no consideration of exact laws neither of known persons. If someone claims to have the copyright of those recordings and can prove it, OK, they must be erased, but it seems absurd to hypothesize the existance of a law and of someone who could use it (I wonder how ? If 3000 people recorded the scene, how could one recognize his "work", and how could he convince us and prove that he is the author ?) Švitrigaila (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not about a hypothetical law, it's about the lack of a legal basis to claim that these works are in the public domain. As I said before, their copyright status is in the best case unclear. I say "in the best case" because the Berne Convention, to which Vatican is a signatory, states that In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, the term of protection granted by this Convention shall expire fifty years after the work has been lawfully made available to the public (Article 7). That is the existing law stating that these works are protected.

Also, even if you claim that these provisions of the Berne Convention don't apply here, then there is a similar case with works first published in countries with no copyright legislation and not being signatories of the Berne Convention (Afghanistan, for example) - we don't have specific tags for them and consequently I think we don't upload them (unless it's been more than 70 years since the author's death, in which case the work would be PD in the vast majority of countries worldwide). I don't know - perhaps we can make a specific tag for such cases, I'm not in charge here. After all, I only tagged your files with "no source", they were deleted by an administrator. I'm only stating my opinions here.

As to the second part of your argumentation - I don't think that the ability of the author to recognize his or her work is a condition for the copyright to exist. If someone sues you for uploading these recordings, you would probably win the case in court for the lack of proof of authorship, but it's not about winning a case - it's about being honest. I believe we should not claim something is PD if there is no specific law that says so. Especially that your reasoning would render virtually all recordings made in public place copyright-free. --Botev (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)