Template talk:PD-China

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

Talk from en wiki[edit]

Sources:

  • [1] (from a law firm in China)
  • [2] (from the PRC, in Chinese)
  • [3] (From a policy paper, PDF)

– Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:01, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Do the same applies to Hong Kong and Macao? Each of them is separate legal jurisdiction from mainland China. — Instantnood 02:23, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Not automatically. Chinese Copyright Law has not been made applicable in Hong Kong or Macao pursuant to the Hong Kong and Macao Basic Laws.--Jusjih 03:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the Template:PD-China[edit]

Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China[edit]

I'm afraid the description in "Template: PD China" looks wrong and is against international law.

(1) Even photographic works don't enter the public doman fifty years after they were created but fifty years after they were first published.

(2) The template says, "This image was created in China", but place of creation has nothing to do with the term of protecting copyright even in the new/old Chinese copyright laws.

I hope the description of the template will be properly amended soon.

Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China 2001

Section 3 Term of Protection for rights

Article 21

...

The term of protection for the right of publication or protection for the right of publication or the rights referred to in Article l0, paragraphs (5) to (17), of this Law in respect of a cinematographic work, a work created by virtue of an analogous method of film production or a photographic work shall be fifty years, and expires on 3l December of the fiftieth year after the first publication of such work, provided that any such work that has not been published within fifty years after the completion of its creation shall no longer be protected under this Law.
Source:New Copyright Law & Old Copyright Law of the PRC


--Watanabe Hisashi 09:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Law of the Republic of China[edit]

Photographic works don't enter the public doman fifty years after they were created but fifty years after they were published.

Copyright Law of the Republic of China 1998

Article 34 Economic rights for photographic works, audiovisual works, sound recordings, computer programs and performances endure for fifty years after the public release of the work. Source:New Copyright Law of the PRC

--Watanabe Hisashi 16:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jurisdiction in the Republic of China[edit]

How can this Chinese law have jurisdiction in Taiwan? Is this a view shared by the Taiwanese side as well? Jakro64 00:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After the Chinese Civil War, both the Republic of China now based in Taiwan and the People's Republic of China based in Mainland claim each other's territory, thus unless otherwise specified, the laws from both sides are supposed to have jurisdictions on each other, but practically they may not be easily enforceable.--Jusjih 16:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong and Macao[edit]

I thought w:Hong Kong and w:Macao are under Chinese rule by now, Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region and Macao as a whatchamacallit. People's Republic rule. So what are the copyrights there, and should we include them in PD-China? 204.52.215.107 05:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macau[edit]

It should be Macau, not Macao, shouldn't it?

It's not a big deal, both are OK. / Fred Chess 12:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-CN}}[edit]

I found another template (PD-CN), looking for the Commons equivalent of zh:template:PD-cn. I think this (PD-China) is what I was looking for here. I was planning on uploading an image from zh: that is licensed with zh:template:PD-cn. Can anyone tell me if this (PD-China) is the equivalent of that? Should PD-CN be redirected here? Thanks, DVD R W 21:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be copied from English Wikisource. It shows works not copyrightable in Red China. It is not for works with expired copyright.--Jusjih 12:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

films[edit]

Please add a note about public domain films into template:

... all photographs enter the public domain fifty years after they were first published, all films enter the public domain fifty years after they were first published, and all other works enter the public domain fifty years after the death of the creator. --Snek01 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New template Template:PD-China-film is made for films. --Snek01 (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autotranslate[edit]

{{Editprotected}} Please, replace template text by folowing text: 

{{Autotranslate|1={{{1|}}}|2={{{2|}}}|3={{{3|}}}|base=PD-China}}<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|File|[[Category:PD China|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}</includeonly><noinclude>

{{documentation}}

[[Category:PD license tags|China]]
</noinclude>

Thanks. --Sevela.p 15:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Tranlation[edit]

I miss an Chinese Tranlation. Template:PD-China/zh HBR (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same in Hong Kong[edit]

I'm a Hongkonger and here all works 50+ years are in the PD. Kayau (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falsches Deutsch[edit]

Bitte "entsprechend des Urheberrechts" in "entsprechend dem Urheberrecht" ändern. Nach "entsprechend" folgt immer der Dativ, nicht der Genitiv, siehe de:Dativ#Dativ bei Präpositionen. Danke --axel (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-photographic copyright of organizations[edit]

According to Commons:Licensing#China.2C_People.27s_Republic_of, "A legal entity or other organization or in respect of a work created in the course of employment enjoys the copyright for 50 years since the first publication." --AVRS (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does the author still have copyright? --AVRS (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template is being used for stamps in Category:Stamps of China — at least in some cases to mean copyright of organizations. However, it does not mention anything but photographic works (50 years from publication or 50 years from creation) and non-photographic works (50 years pma). So, apparently, it is used incorrectly. Does "50 years since the first publication" apply to stamps, and is there a template for that? Thanks.--AVRS (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Law with respect to Photographs[edit]

This template has not been revised after the 2010 Chinese copyright law went into effect.

The 1990 and 2001 copyright laws say, at Article 21:

"The term of protection for the right of publication or protection for the right of publication or the rights referred to in Article 10, paragraphs (5) to (17), of this Law in respect of a cinematographic work, a work created by virtue of an analogous method of film production or a photographic work shall be fifty years, and expires on 31 December of the fiftieth year after the first publication of such work, provided that any such work that has not been published within fifty years after the completion of its creation shall no longer be protected under this Law."

The 2010 law says, also at Article 21:

"The term of protection of the right of publication and of the rights provided in Items (5) through (17) of Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of this Law in respect of a cinematographic work or a work created in a way similar to cinematography shall be fifty years, expiring on December 31 of the fiftieth year after the first publication of such a work, however, any such work that has not been published within fifty years after the completion of its creation shall no longer be protected by this Law."

The reference to photographic works does not appear in the current law, so they are covered for fifty years PMA. It is not clear whether the change is retroactive -- a photograph first published in 1950, taken by a person who died in 2000, would have become PD under the old law in 2000, but would not be PD until 2050 under the new law. Since this is uncertain, we must assume that the new law has restored copyright retroactively.

Unless someone can point out an error in my reasoning, I will change this template accordingly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: , what's your source? Here's the same 2010 China copyright law according to WIPO [4]:
"In respect of a cinematographic work, a work created by a process analogous to cinematography or a photographic work, the term of protection for the right of publication and the rights as provided for in Subparagraph (5) through Subparagraph (17) of the first paragraph in Article 10 of this Law shall be fifty years, expiring on December 31 of the fiftieth year after the first publication of such work; however, such work shall no longer be protected under this Law if it is not published within fifty years after the completion of its creation."
There's no significant change from the 1990 law, and photos are still covered by publication/creation date, not PMA. -Zanhe (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. Wikisource (s:Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (2010)) seems to have got the document wrong. I've never edited Wikisource, so I left a message on the talk page requesting correction. -Zanhe (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So does this mean we should review all photos uploaded to Commons since 2010 under this template's rationale? Jolly Janner (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the template got the rationale right. It's Wikisource that got the wrong document (or sloppy translation) somehow and needs to be corrected. As far as we're concerned, there was no significant change in the 2010 copyright law. -Zanhe (talk) 01:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Let's put this on hold until Wikisource responds. It is, of course, possible that its WIPO that got it wrong, but I'd say that the error is more likely at WS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: A Wikisource admin already responded and recognized the error, see s:Talk:Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (2010). Also, the official government website China.org.cn agrees with WIPO, see here. -Zanhe (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good. That saves us a lot of work looking at everything that uses this template. Thanks for your effort here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using this template by itself[edit]

I've seen countless files that use this template as its only rationale for inclusion on Commons, however there are many scenarios where the files are not free in the US and thus should not be used on Commons. Photographs are free in China if taken before 1966, but need to be taken before 1946 (PRC) or 1952 (ROC) to satisfy Template:PD-1996. This 14-20 year gap is probably overlooked by anyone unfamiliar with Commons licenses. I would therefore recommend a notice is placed on the template reminding users that files need to be free in both their home country and in the United States (perhaps with a link to Template:PD-1996). What are other users thoughts? Jolly Janner (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would require a Commons-wide discussion. If this proposal is adopted, a notice should be added to all non-US PD templates. It makes no sense to treat PD-China differently from other country-specific templates. -Zanhe (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I've added a link to this discussion at Template:Centralized discussion. I would certainly recommend its use in any template in similar circumstances. There may, however, be some country-specific templates which by their definition would also allow US rights. A hypothetical template on the UK's threshold of originality comes to mind. Such cases probably wouldn't need it. Jolly Janner (talk) 03:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I've modified this template to transclude {{PD-old-warning-text|50}}, which at least 'marginally' addresses the concerns... this is not intended to stop any discussion, it's just an immediate fix for 'this' template. Reventtalk 09:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The transcluded text is

You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Note that this work might not be in the public domain in countries that do not apply the rule of the shorter term and have copyright terms longer than life of the author plus 50 years. In particular, Mexico is 100 years, Jamaica is 95 years, Colombia is 80 years, Guatemala and Samoa are 75 years, Switzerland and the United States are 70 years, and Venezuela is 60 years.

There are probably quite a few other 'country' PD templates that should transclude this.
@Jolly Janner: @Zanhe: - since this has been idle.
A more 'sophisticated' version of this transclusion would allow using a 'nowarn' parameter to turn the warning off, but.. meh. Reventtalk 10:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be used across all country PD tags. By scrolling through them all, about half of them do. Template:PD-United Arab Emirates photo covers the topic quite nicely and some such as Template:PD-Saudi Arabia provide a table to make it easier. Anyway, here's a start with some that do not mention US copyright statuses as a rationale: Jolly Janner (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think {{PD-Saudi Arabia}} rather oversimplifies the URAA, but... yeah, all non-US copyright templates should mention that a US license tag is also needed, and ideally have the ability to 'turn it off'. As far as editing 'all' of them, it might be better discussed at VPC... this is in {{Cent}}, but more people seem to watch that page. Explicitly mentioning the 'and the US' requirement might actually help with copyright problems. Reventtalk 02:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added it (with hopefully the correct time paramater) to the ones you mentioned that don't claim some kind of 'exempt' status, as it's pretty clearly appropriate. Reventtalk 02:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"the" Penghu?[edit]

Please remove the "the". --Khajidha (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the Penghu"[edit]

The written form "currently with jurisdiction in Taiwan, the Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu, etc." is grammatically flawed. The 'the' would be needed before 'the Pescadores', but it is appalling to behold written before the word 'Penghu'. That is my opinion, but I could be wrong. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:PD-China&oldid=683780869"