Template talk:PD-Denmark50

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

Requirement of PD in US[edit]

Because works on Commons must be PD in home country and in the US it should be added when this is the case. It seems to be complicated. Nillerdk (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I think this is better solved with a US-specific notice on each picture than here since a full description of the requirements would make the template rather big. Since the term was 25 years until 1995 and the change wasn't retrospective, often either {{PD-1923}} or {{PD-1996}} will apply, but the bit about US copyright formalities in the 1996-template and the distinction between creation date and publication date does indeed make it complicated. Maybe the template should be amended with something like "Note: in addition to this statement, there must be a statement on this page explaining why the photograph is public domain in the United States."? Hemmingsen (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The ammendment seems a good solution to me. Nillerdk (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I (Nillerdk) made this draft to help determine copyright status - please check my draft very carefully[edit]

I moved the first version of the draft from here to a subpage. Permanent link to the original first version: [1] Nillerdk (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

I have assembled the flow above. Please check for correctness and comment it here. Hemmingsen: When would {{PD-1923}} be relevant together with {{PD-Denmark50}}? Nillerdk (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I only have minor comments.
  • 2: As I read the law, all photographs qualify as photographic pictures and a subset of them qualify as photographic works. Maybe change it to "Is the photo a photographic work or only a photographic picture..."?
  • 2-work: I would leave out PD-art here. If the photograph is simple enough for PD-art to apply it is probably safe to assume that it doesn't meet the Danish threshold of originality.
  • 2-work: A rather minor point, but I would change PD-old to PD-old-70, just be slightly more specific.
  • Maybe we should mention the possibility of photographs that meet neither the US nor the Danish threshold of originality somewhere? The US threshold is rather low, and I can't think of any usable examples besides PD-art images which we allow regardless of the Danish simple photographs-protection, but maybe someone else can.
  • 4: Since we are talking about images that aren't works in Denmark, maybe using the word "work" is potentially confusing? In the first use, it could be changed to "photo" without destroying the meaning.
  • Regarding 5 and your question on PD-1923: I would rename 5 to 6 and create a new 5 for the 1923-term:
5. Was it first published before 1923:
Yes: The photo is PD in the United States and in Denmark. Use {{PD-Denmark50}} and {{PD-1923}}.
No: Go to next step.
The point of this step is that you don't have to check for compliance with US copyright formalities for pre-1923 publications. In some cases, for instance if someone else scanned the image from an old book you don't happen to own a copy of and you're just double-checking the license, it may be a lot of unnecessary work to do so. You also don't have to worry about whether it was published in the US within 30 days, so it's generally easier than using PD-1996. It isn't terribly important to mention since both of those two possibilities are unlikely to cause any problems for pre-1923 images, though. Hemmingsen (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation of the files tagged with this license template[edit]

Right now, the files go in Category:PD Denmark. Some other license templates also put the files in this same category. If noone objects, I will change this template to put the files in Category:PD Denmark (photographic pictures) and make this category a subcategory of Category:PD Denmark. Nillerdk (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Something is wrong here[edit]

Currently the English language version of this template state (and Danish language version something very similar) that:

This image is in the public domain because the Danish Consolidated Act on Copyright of 2003 specifies (§70, 2) that all photographic images not considered to be "works of art" become public domain 50 years after they were created.
According to the transitional regulations of 1995, photographic images without artistic merit are exempt from copyright protection provided that they were created before 1 January 1970 (§91, 5).

But the transitional regulations of 1995 §91, 5 doesn't say that "photographic images without artistic merit are exempt from copyright protection". It say that "photographic images without artistic merit are not covered by §70, 2". Which is something totally different, because the latter actually means that photographic images without artistic merit might be covered by something else (i.e. we had the Danish law on photography from 1961 to 1995. I don't have the full historical/legal picture (no pun intended), to actually know what the was (perhaps just something or perhaps they didn't distinguish between photographic images without or with artistic merit). But I don't think the current is correct though. In kind regards heb [T C E] 12:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem you're seeing. If it is "what if there still was a photography act?", then it seems purely hypothetical. Prior to 1995, photos weren't protected by the Danish copyright act, and the separate photography act only had a short term with no threshold of originality, but as the EU copyright directive required a life + 70 years protection for photos above the threshold, the two acts were joined into one. So there isn't a copyright or neighbouring rights protection somewhere else any longer. Peter Alberti (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that, as I see it now, this template deals with two different issues:
  • The issue of photographic images without artistic merit not being protected by ophavsret (Danish Consolidated Act on Copyright §1) but only eneret, which lasts 50 years after it was created. This applies to all photographic images without artistic merit created from Janurary 1st 1970 and onwards.
  • The issue of photographic images without artistic merit created before Janurary 1st 1970, which are simply expired.
The 50 years rule is only relevant from 2021 when the first photographs from 1970 becomes PD. For those before it's simply expired. --heb [T C E] 08:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm probably missing some detail in the wording because to me your summary seems equivalent to what the template currently says. One minor and insignificant nitpicking though: the 1865 and 1911 photography acts required registration of the photos in order for the protection to apply, so many old photos were never given any protection and those haven't expired in a strict sense.
I agree, though, that until we reach 2021 the 1970 date is more important than the 50 years term. Would a copyedit that moved 1970 up to the beginning and made it more prominent than the 50 years term help resolve your problem? Or do you have another idea for rewording? Peter Alberti (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't remember that the 1865 act also required registration for protection (the 1911 did it quite clearly though, as it was a requirement to add the date of registration to the original negative), but good point. My issue is, that I think that it is misleading to have only one template for two different issues. I think there should be one for pre-1970 photographic images without artistic merit and another for PD-50 (which then of course wouldn't actually be used until 2021, as it is in fact two different situations (though the outcome of course is essentially the same at that point). In kind regards heb [T C E] 14:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
And now I got it (and I probably should have gotten it from your previous post). I don't think there's a need for two separate templates yet — around 2021 that will of course be different matter —, but I certainly don't object to making the pre-1970 part prominent in both the template name and text. That would just reflect real usage anyway. Having looked a bit at the edit history, it seems as if the 50 years term was made that prominent only because no-one was aware of the 1970-cutoff at the time (it was first added more than two years later[2]). Do you have any suggestions for a wording for a PD-Denmark1970-template or a better name? I'll try to come up with something later this week if you don't beat me to it. Peter Alberti (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've written up a first draft for a new wording below. I'm aiming for a copyedit only with no changes to the substance but hopefully small improvements in clarity. For example, I don't see a need to single out Germany, when the same potential problem is true for many other European countries. I've also added a link to threshold of originality, which I think can be helpful in some cases, and updated the link to the text of the act (it was broken). If you have any improvements, please edit the text directly. Peter Alberti (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Public domain This image is in the public domain because the Danish Consolidated Act on Copyright of 2010 specifies (§91, 5) that all photographic images not considered to be "photographic works" that were created before 1 January 1970 are exempt from protection.

Note that "photographic works", which must display artistic merit or originality, enter the public domain 70 years after the death of the photographer and that photographs that are not considered works but created 1 January 1970 or later become public domain 50 years after they were created. See Licensing for details.

Some countries have a lower threshold of originality and may therefore apply a longer protection term for this image, so it may not be usable in such countries.

To uploader: For this to be applicable, creation year must be known (or known to be at least before 1970)
Note: in addition to this statement, there must be a statement on this page explaining why the photograph is public domain in the United States.

dansk | Deutsch | English | Ελληνικά | македонски | +/−

Flag of Denmark.svg
This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.
First I'd like to say I'm sorry for the long answering time. Second: Simply shifting the "focus" so that the pre-1970 part is more prominent seems sensible enough to me. After all it's about pragmatism in the end, so I don't think we should change the name of the template. I've made a few modifications to the template above. The most prominent one, being the bolded statement for the uploader. In kind regards heb [T C E] 05:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I'd don't consider changing the name to be particularly important either. I'll update the English and Danish texts. The other translations are beyond my language skills but since there isn't supposed to be any changes to which photos the template applies to, I don't think it's of any urgency. Peter Alberti (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Does the template cover Faroe Islands / Greenland?[edit]

I just had a script running through all transclusions of this template, with the purpose of identifying photos that does not appear to have the necessary accompanying copyright tag explaining why the photograph is public domain in the US and put them in a category for fixing. I was though a bit surprised to see a number of apparent Faroese photos in there, such as:

I am no expert on Faroese legislation, but the current Danish law on authors rights (which this template is tied to) states in § 93 that this law does not apply to the Faroe Islands nor Greenland, but can be put partially or entirely into effect, with whatever modifications that may be needed, on the Faroe Islands and Greenland. Does anybody know what the status on Faroe Island and Greenland is? --heb [T C E] 13:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Only two of those photos you refer to are of Faroese persons/events, Hákun Djurhuus and Olavsokuskrudgongan. Olfert Jespersen was Danish and Stefán Jóhannes Stefánsson was from Iceland. I am not sure about the Faroese copyright law. They have been talking about it these last months, it is being discussed in the Løgting right now, as far as I know. I made a surch on Google right now and found this: http://www.tinganes.fo/logir/Rikislogartilmaeli/2001upphavsraett.htm - The text is in Faroese says and then comes the Danish low. The Faroese text is from 2001 and says that the Danish law should apply to the Faroe Islands as well, and it is signed by the Faroese Prime Minister at that time, Anfinn Kallsberg, so I think that the Danish law applys to the Faroe Islands as well as Denmark. Later though, in 2010, this law area was taken ower by the Faroese government. I am not sure what that means, but I am guessing that the Danish law still applys until a new Faroese law is made. The Faroese text:
Ríkislógartilmæli um at seta í gildi fyri Føroyar lóg um upphavsrættindi. Samsvarandi samtykt Føroya løgtings staðfestir og fráboðar løgmaður ríkismyndugleikunum hetta ríkislógartilmælið: Mælt verður ríkismyndugleikunum til at seta í gildi fyri Føroyar hjálagda skjal 1, uppskot til kongliga fyriskipan um lóg um upphavsrættindi. Samstundis fer úr gildi ríkislógartilmæli frá 13. juni 1997 um at seta í gildi fyri Føroyar lóg um upphavsrætt. Tórshavn, 3. apríl 2001. Anfinn Kallsberg løgmaður.

Kind regards EileenSanda (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Danish copyright act doesn't apply in neither Greenland nor the Faroe Islands, both have their own copyright acts. I believe the current ones are [3] and [4] (I only have links for Danish language versions). They are both very similar to the Danish act in many aspects but they are not identical. The difference that is most important in this context is that the cut-off date for simple photos isn't 1970 as in Denmark but 1977 (§91 part 5) for the Faroe Islands and 1975 (§91 part 4) for Greenland. So it should be safe to use this template for the North Atlantic as well.
The question of URAA restoration for photos from between 1970 and 1977/1975 is however rather confusing to me. The home rule governments haven't entered any international copyright treaties independently of Denmark, instead Denmark have entered them on behalf of the entire kingdom. The consequence is that for the purposes of countries implementing the rule of the shorter term and URAA restorations the relevant term is always the term of the Danish act, also for North Atlantic works. However, while the Danish photography protection from before 1995 was compliant with the requirements of the Berne convention, I am not sure the same can be said of the protection of simple photos since 1995. There is no mention of this protection in the act otherwise applying copyright to international works ("anordning om anvendelsen af ophavsretsloven i forhold til andre lande") so it applies that in the cases listed in §86 part 5, i.e. photos with a specific connection to the European Economic Area, not for example to a purely American photo. Would that not render it irrelevant to a US court when considering URAA restoration? I am not sure, but the question is whether we need new more widely usable templates or not, as it we can always play it safe and use Danish law. Peter Alberti (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, both for your input. Eileen, I believe that the legislation that you link to, Anordning om ikrafttræden for Færøerne af lov om ophavsret, Tórshavn, 3. apríl 2001, was replaced by the one Peter links to, Anordning nr. 1003 af 11.12.2001 om ikrafttræden for Færøerne af lov om ophavsret, thus it would stand to reason, that this is the current legislation in effect until the new one, being discussed in the Løgting right now comes into effect. Peter, as far as I can see the variations in the cut off dates are not relevant (other than they should be mentioned in the template, so that the usage of it is clear in all three countries), because they are so far from URAA restoration. For at least the Faroe Islands there was a compliance with the Berne convention previously in A. nr. 365 af 23.09.1965 om anvendelsen af lov om ophavsretten til litterre og kunstneriske vrker og lov om retten til fotografi §13 (law starts 4/5 or so down that page), which refers to Anordning nr. 303 af 5. oktober 1961 om anvendelsen af lov om ophavsretten til litterære og kunstneriske værker og lov om retten til fotografiske billeder i forhold til andre lande m. v., and I would honestly be rather surprised if something similar was not in effect for Greenland as well. I believe the prudent way would be to see if it's possible to dig up something similar for Greenland (I can't find anything at this moment unfortunately) and then simply append the template with legislation and cut off dates for the two other countries and then keep it at that. In kind regards, Henrik/heb [T C E] 10:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
While I don't have a link handy for Greenland either, it is correct that both the Faroe Islands and Greenland had a Berne convention compliant photography protection in 1996 (on the URAA date), but that makes no difference as they aren't signatories to the convention. The source country as defined by the URAA is always Denmark, so only the law in Denmark matters. And as I see it, since 1995 the only convention compliant photo protection in Denmark proper has been the regular copyright protection of photographic works.
As an example we could consider a simple photo taken and first published in 1972 in the Faroe Islands (could just as well be Greenland) without a US-style copyright notice. Today it would be public domain in both North Atlantic countries. It would still be protected by the 50 years term in Denmark but that is in itself not a problem, at least not if we consider the Faroe Islands to be the country of origin as defined in Commons:Licensing. The only potential problem is URAA restoration. To determine whether it was expired in the source country in 1996, a US court would only look at Danish law and — if I am correct — conclude that it was only protected in a convention compliant way from 1972 until 1995 when the old photography act was replaced. Therefore it would not restore the US copyright. That the Faroese version of the old photography act was still in effect in the Faroe Islands and protected the photo until 1997 had passed doesn't make any difference. Peter Alberti (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Note that File:Stefán Jóh. Stefánsson.jpg is listed as first published in "Nordens Kalender 1937". Maybe this was published in all Nordic countries concurrently? In that case, the source country is not necessarily the Faroe Islands but the Nordic country with the shortest copyright term.
Also note that URAA only is relevant for photos which were published before 1 March 1989. If you have an old photo which was never published before 1 March 1989, then you do instead need to show that {{PD-US-unpublished}} applies. For example, File:PM Hakun Djurhuus.jpg contains no evidence of publication. There is a link to Sambandsflokkurin's website, but the link is dead and it seems that the link only is supposed to go directly to the image anyway, so there is no way to check if the photo has been published or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)