Commons talk:Freedom of panorama

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

Shortcut: CT:FOP

alt= link=
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14


Nagorno-Karabakh[edit]

Okay, I got an FOP case we may want to take a look at. Several images of the statue We Are Our Mountains have been nominated for deletion because Azerbaijan does not have valid FOP rules. However, the art in question is located in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, which is an independent state that is recognized internationally as part of Azerbaijan (which however, "has not exercised power over most of the region since 1991"), but is predominantly Armenian (so much so that Wikipedia describes its political climate as being "intermingled" with Armenia). Unlike Azerbaijan, Armenia does have FOP rules that are allowable on Commons. The nominator also removed the {{FoP-Armenia}} tag I had placed on it due to their technically invalid claim that it is "located in Azerbaijan".

So of course, the real question is, which copyright laws apply in Nagorno-Karabakh? I personally am thinking Armenia, primarily because it is an independent state that has, presumably, modelled their laws after those of Armenia. ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It is the copyright rules of Azerbaijan which apply, since Nagorno-Karabakh is a part of Azerbaijan. It is not even a disputed territory, at least not from the point of international law.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • On the list there is a Taiwan (Republic of China) - like Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Abkhazia, and other similar cases, it is only partially recognized a so called state. According to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Natural_point_of_view we should not decide, which side has right, we should not be involved in the political debate on the topic: this is independent territory or no?. Both sides has their claims, rights and laws, and our duty is to show them to the other Commons users, no matter who, in our believe was right. So we should know, what looks like the regulations about Freedom of panorama in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. If they've got the same as in Azerbaijan (so it means no-FoP), images from territory of Nagorno-Karabakh should be deleted because they violates the both laws: Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Azerbaijan. We've got the same situation in the topic below, with Abkhazia. But there, the georgian law and abkhazian law is the same - no-FoP. There is no problem with delete or not delete images. Would be good, if someone who knows the Armenian language can find a regulations about the Copyright laws in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and then we would know, how the situations looks like. Halavar (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ymblanter. The monuments in the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh are under FoP of Azerbaijan. Nagorno-Karabakh is not the part of Armenia. It is a part of Azerbaijan. That is why {{FoP-Armenia}} has nothing to do in these pages. FoP-Azerbaijan should be there. See FOP for Former Soviet Union. --Interfase (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Disregard the "is it internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan" part: does Nagorno-Karabakh even have its own copyright law? Well, {{PD-NKR-exempt}} implies that it does. But the link is broken, and the Word file didn't render correctly from a copy on Archive.org. However, the language used in the template uses the same language as our translation of the Armenia's Law on Copyright and Related Rights, which means that Nagorno-Karabakh's copyright law is most likely modeled after that of Armenia. If this is the case, it must also mean that there's no FoP in Nagorno-Karabakh. Why? Armenia specifically amended their copyright law with allowable FOP. We don't know if N-K did the same, so even with that, we still have to delete it unless it is otherwise proven. ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Even if the law of unrecognized Nagorno Karabakh Republic agrees with FoP, law of Azerbaijan disagrees. Why we should comply with law of NKR, and not of Azerbaijan? Azerbaijan has more rights for these monuments. All states recognize Azerbaijan within its territories, and there is no any state, which recognizes NKR. Even Armenia didn't recognize this state. De-jure this monument is on the territory of Azerbaijan. We know that there is no FoP in Azerbaijan. So all images of monuments in Nagorno-Karabakh, which architect died after 1945, must be deleted. Why are you looking some another law when we have law of Azerbaijan? --Interfase (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I just said that it doesn't have FoP because it's presumed to be based upon Armenia's older copyright law, which also had no FoP. Also, do you have any actual, reliably sourced information stating that people in the republic are subject to Azerbaijani law? ViperSnake151 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Most of the world considers it part of Azerbaijan. Copyright laws are frequently not well enforced, but we haven't let the presence of Napster or the Pirate Bay, or their widespread use, affect us, nor the fact that we sometimes seem to be the only people who really care about the FoP laws. We consider the source nation in part for purposes of nations that have the rule of the shorter term, and they most all are going to consider Azerbaijani law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

De facto entities[edit]

{{edit request}} There is a controversial issue here, user Halavar added information about breakaway region of Georgia Abkhazia in the country list. After several reverts user Ymblanter protected this page, but Halavar's edits still remain, please revert his edits, and change only after issue will be solved in discussion. --g. balaxaZe 15:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit protected requests should only be used for uncontroversial edits, or ones that have consensus. Your requested edit appears to go to the heart of the dispute, and amounts to an objection that Ymblanter protected "the wrong version". Instead of trying to continue the edit war after protection of the page, please engage in discussion to establish a consensus as to whether or not Abkhazia should have its own entry on this page. WJBscribe (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
You WJBscribe or someone else tell me why his controversial edits must appear and my do not? Because he edited first ? — nonsense. I am just suggesting status quo and then discussions and no one interested in this ? --g. balaxaZe 15:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Moreover I reverted it only to stable version .... --g. balaxaZe 15:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
You cannot insist on the page being your preferred version while further discussion takes place. A neutral administrator noticed an edit war and protected the page as he found it. That is normal practice. Now instead of objecting that the page happened to be Halavar's version rather than yours at the time it was protected, I suggest you state clearly your case as to why this page should not include an entry for Abkhazia, so that discussion can result and a consensus hopefully be established. WJBscribe (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • On the list there is a Taiwan (Republic of China) - like Abkhazia, and other similar cases, it is only partially recognized a so called state. According to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Natural_point_of_view we should not decide, which side has right. Both sides has their laws, and our duty is to show them to the other Comons users. So, if we have a laws from Taiwan, we can also have laws about FoP from Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic or Republic of Northern Cyprus. Halavar (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    NPOV is irrelevant; this is not article space. This is about Commons policy and the law it is based on, and we can not just punt on these issues. Each case in this group is unique, and Taiwan has widespread informal recognition and more formal recognition then Abkhazia; see the map on the right. In any case, we can't hand wave this; we can't neutrally not pick a set of FoP laws to apply to a statue in Abkhazia. We have to declare the law is relevant or not relevant for our purposes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    RC (Taiwan).png
  • Taiwan issue is different, until 1970s it was represented even in UN, instead of revolutionary communist China...... Taiwan's government was real government of China before communists revolution. In December 1949, Chiang (leader of the Kuomintang) evacuated his government to Taiwan and made Taipei the temporary capital of the Republic of China. Taiwan wasn't made by bloody secessionists and foreign occupation forces like Abkhazia. --g. balaxaZe 16:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that the Abkhazia section should not be removed entirely, as it contains information that might be relevant for anyone willing to upload photos of Abkhazian buildings or artwork on Commons (@Prosfilaes:). Instead, we could consider to put it in a subsection of Georgian FoP, and to handle other controversial territories same way. --A.Savin 08:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the Abkhazia section under Georgia. I still think we have to have some system for acknowledging or ignoring these states for the purposes of Commons, that this is a policy issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

FoP in Abkhazia[edit]

According to my simple understanding the independence of Abkhazia is not recognized by the US (only 5 countries including Russia recognized it) and therefore copyrightable in US. Most of the countries (including the US) recognize the territorial integrity of Georgia and the Georgian law in their country. Author can't claim to copyright in the US according to Abkhazian low only according to the Georgian low. I think that User:Halavar's addition to COM:FoP (all the section about Abkhazia)was without discussion and incorrect and therefore should be removed until the discussion come to conclusion.

As I am not an expert in that kind of issues, I invite @Clindberg: and @MichaelMaggs: and all others to express their opinion. -- Geagea (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

As I already wrote in the previous thread, I don't think that we should delete infos on FoP laws of disputed territories entirely, as it is in accordance to the precautionary principle for an uploader to respect local laws even if that laws are not recognized elsewhere. In order to avoid conflicts of this kind, we should arrange to use the "4.x" heading level only for uncontroversially recognized, independent states, and to use subsections like "Georgia -> Abkhazia", "Cyprus -> Northern Cyprus", "Serbia -> Kosovo" etc. for disputed cases. Especially in possible cases where the de facto state has a more restrictive FoP law than the rest of the de jure state (it does not apply for Abkhazia and Georgia, but it is not to rule out for somewhere else) we should of course never remove that infos. --A.Savin 10:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The paragraph speaks about situation after 2006. So allegedly before that FoP in Abkhazia is o.k. which is definitely not true. In that time none of the countries in the world recognized the independence of Abkhazia including Russia (only in 2008). More then that, the link to the low of abkhazia is that (saved page from 2007). This is not serious. The whole paragraph added by user that does not understand the issue and only meet with it few days ago. This paragraph is not according to the standards that we should have this page which alot of DR's based on him. -- Geagea (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that now (after the today's changes) the situation looks good, it means the info about no-FoP in Abkhazia within the Georgia section, and with adnotation, that this is a disputed territory. In the future, we should do the same with Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, Transnistria and others disputed regions. Showing the both sides of the coin, de facto and de iure. As A.Savin said, uploader should know the local law and should respect the local law (because the local law made by de facto goverment has the power on that region) but also should respect the law from the other side, so it means the country with de iure status of the disputed region. This is consistent with a neutral point of view. As it was here (on Commons) in the past and with other controversial issues (like for instance last year's situation with Crimea), always win the statement, that Wikimedia Commons is not involving into the political controversial issues. --Halavar (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Copyright claim in abkhazia is according to the Georgian low. This should be the first sentence. Next it may mention the Abkhazian law with link to the correct page of the Abkhazian law. And her two food for thought:
      • What will be the situation of FoP in Abkhazia if the Georgian law will change (but not the Abkhazian law) and FoP Georgia will be o.k.?
      • What will be the situation of FoP in Abkhazia if the Abkhazian law will change (but not the Georgia law) and FoP according to the Abkhazian law will be o.k.? -- Geagea (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, that will be a problem. We've got the same situation in above, in the section Nagorno-Karabakh. Please read, what I wrote there. We know, that we've got FoP in Serbia, but we don't know how the copyright status looks like in the Kosovo. Also, we know, that we have FoP in Moldova, but we don't know, how the situation looks like in Transnistria. Halavar (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There was a debate about the disputed region of Crimea. In Ukraine there is no-FoP but in Russia is more liberal law, a FoP. According to discussion, there was a statement telling us that: "It is currently not clear yet if copyrighted buildings in Crimea are subject to the Russian or the more restrictive Ukrainian law. So long, as per precautionary principle, images of knowingly unfree Crimean buildings should not be uploaded to Commons."

So now we know, what to do, if there will be a changes in the copyright law in Georgia or in the Republic of Abkhazia. The same sitation would be in other disputed regions. --Halavar (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  • IMHO we should use the law actually used in each place, not the law if the place was free of "invaders" and the world perfect. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    Well, we use PRP to avoid lawsuit from copyright holders. But if they will sue in Georgian courts, courts will apply Georgian laws (similar if US courts), because they do not recognize Abkhazian laws.--Anatoliy (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    If a gang takes over Hollywood, can we start uploading any movie we want, since the East Street Raiders deny copyright? How long do they have to hold it for that to happen? International recognition makes a clean line for stuff like that. As I pointed out at the Village Pump, part of the point of Commons' rules is a theory that an extended rule of the shorter term applies; in that case, international recognition matters. If we're ignoring that, then why does paying attention to the law used in each place make sense? Recognized nations are stabler, more likely to have passed clear copyright law, and more likely to be signers of international copyright treaties, whose party nations will use the law of the recognized nation, not the unrecognized, when it matters.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    I talk about realistic situations, not dreams. If Hollywood is taken over by the Pirate Bay, the world may be a better place copyright wise, but that not going to happen any time soon. ;oD Yann (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    Want to try again and respond to the points I made?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that the goal of this section is to list laws that can realistically apply to an uploader (or to a reuser). If an uploader or a reuser is located in Abkhazia, it is clear that he is subject to Abkhazian law. However, if an uploader or a reuser is located in any other country, Georgian law will apply. Servers are located in the USA, and USA has no copyright relations with Abkhazia. It is impossible to submit a DMCA claim according to Abkhazian law or stating Abkhazia as a source country, nor it is possible to sue an uploader in an Abkhazian court (if it exists) for images uses that breach Abkhazian law. Thus from practical standpoint I do not think that Abkhazian law can apply to anyone other than Abkhazian citizens or residents, and in all other cases Georgian law will apply — NickK (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The outcome is that FoP in Abkhazia can be reached only if we have changes in both countries. The funny thing is that we even can't be sure that there is no FoP according to the Abkhazian law as the link give is old (2007) and I am pretty sure that the Abkhazian law look different after the recognition by Russia (2008). I agree with that we should add a link to the Abkhazian law as it may apply in Abkhazia or Russia but we need correct and reliable source. -- Geagea (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)