Template talk:PD-Iraq

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

Which treaty, when was it signed? Is this for use in anticipation of a future treaty? I didn't see anything in the new Iraqi Constitution about copyright. Even though there may be no law currently in Iraq covering copyright, I wonder if future laws will be retroactive? --Pmsyyz 11:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Fred Chess 11:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

New version[edit]

I just found a much better translated version and will update soon. --Selket 19:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is better. --Selket 00:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

before 1 January 1999![edit]

It is a photographic or cinematic work that is not compositive (artistic in nature) first published before 1 January 1999. who say that?--Haider90 (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Haider90: I think that I have discovered the source: Article 20 of the old 1971 copyright law. (English version, Arabic version) It says this: "However, with respect to photographic and cinematic works which are limited to the mechanical transmission of scenery, such rights shall expire with the elapse of five years as from the date of first publication of the work." But Article 20 was completely replaced by a new Article 20 on May 1, 2004. (Arabic and English versions) Starting on May 1, 2004, Iraqi law doesn't have the "photographic and cinematic works" sentence; but it has a new sentence: "The provisions of this Law shall apply to works existing at the time it takes effect, provided the term of protection for those works have not yet fallen into the public domain in their country of origin." So: Photographic and cinematic works, which were limited to the mechanical transmission of scenery and were published before May 1, 1999, already had expired copyrights by May 1, 2004, so they stayed in the public domain. But if they were only published on May 1, 1999 or after, then the 5 years wasn't finished when the 2004 amendment was made, so the short copyright was replaced by the same longer copyright length as all other work. --Closeapple (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

2014 template rewrite[edit]

This template does not cite sections of law that match it, and has been ruined by ungrammatical, confusing edits (like Template:PD-Iraq). The bad wording causes messes like this: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by StanTheMan87#Files uploaded by StanTheMan87 (talk · contribs) 4. Therefore, I intend to change the wording of the template, and create a new template, each with clear criteria, as shown in the next two sections. --Closeapple (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

PD-Iraq[edit]

The text should be something like this:

This work, first published in Iraq, is in the public domain in Iraq according to the Coalition Provision Authority Order Number 83: Amendment to the Copyright Law (WIPO Lex No. IQ003) (also at [1]), because:
  • it was already in the public domain in the country of origin on May 1, 2004 (2004 amendment creating Article between Article 49 and Article 50); or
  • it is "collections of official documents, such as texts of international laws, regulations and agreements, judicial judgments and various official documents" that are not "characterized by originality, arrangement or any other personal effort which deserves protection" (Article 6 both before and after 2004); or
  • the sole author (or all authors) of the work died more than 50 years ago (2004 amendment of Article 20, paragraphs 1 and 2); or
  • it was first published or made available to the public more than 50 years ago and:
    • the copyright holder was a legal entity other than a natural person (2004 amendment of Article 20, paragraph 3); or
    • the work was first published after the author's death (2004 amendment of Article 20, paragraph 3); or
    • the work was published anonymously or under a pseudonym and the author's identity has not become known (2004 amendment of Article 20, paragraph 4); or
    • it is a work of applied art (2004 amendment of Article 20, paragraph 5).

In addition, if the work is a performance, this performance or recording was made more than 50 years ago (2004 amendment creating Article 34bis, paragraphs 3 and 5).

Comments? Should the Article 6 bit be split out to a new template, in case we discover later that official documents are copyrighted, and it's just the extra collection of them that isn't? --Closeapple (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

My edit you cited [2] was just an adaption to the general style of this templates. What's the problem with it?--Antemister (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
For example, the phrase "It is a work where the copyright holder is a legal entity or a work of applied art 50 years have passed since the year of its publication" is, at the least, missing the word "and" between "art" and "50". The grammar also makes it sound like there might be something like "a work where the copyright holder is ... a work of applied art", which makes no sense, but license templates are sometimes read by silly people. It is a subtle problem with the English language: If you follow a preposition by two phrases with a conjunction, it becomes unclear whether both phrases are part of the prepositional phrase. The problem becomes worse from omitting commas. It would have been clearer if it said "It is a work of applied art, or a work where the copyright holder is a legal entity, and 50 years have passed since the year of its publication." — or better: "50 years have passed since the year of its publication, and either it is a work of applied art, or the copyright holder is a legal entity." so that no-one will doubt that the 50 years apply to both "applied art" and "copyright holder is a legal entity". I guess you have seen the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by StanTheMan87#Files uploaded by StanTheMan87 (talk · contribs) 4: That uploader is reading "It is a work where the copyright holder is a legal entity" by itself as a criterion, and insists that every non-human "legal entity" has lost copyright in Iraq. And then before that, in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by StanTheMan87#Files uploaded by StanTheMan87 (talk · contribs), that uploader implies that all humans also lose all copyright in Iraq ("At the very least, a 'natural person' is considered a legal entity in this case, as it is Iraqi citizens present during the production."). The uploader is confused, of course: The logical conclusion of his arguments is that nothing at all has copyright in Iraq, since humans and organizations are both "legal entities". And then there was the question in the section #before 1 January 1999! above, where someone asked where the "not compositive (artistic in nature)" and 1999 date came from. So I have rephrased all of it, so that it is closer to the law itself, and points to where each part came from. --Closeapple (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

PD-Iraq pre-2004[edit]

I also propose creating a new template, maybe named {{PD-Iraq-1971-2004}}, with text like this:

This work is public domain in Iraq by already being public domain on May 1, 2004. Under Articles 20 and 22 of "Copyright Law No. 3 for the Year 1971 for the Protection of Copyright" (English translation) (WIPO Lex No. IQ008), this work was already public domain because:

  • the work was published before May 1, 1954 and all of its authors died before May 1, 1979; or
  • the work was published before May 1, 1974 and the author is a "body corporate, public or private" (i.e. not a natural person); or
  • the work was published before May 1, 1999 and was "photographic and cinematic work ... limited to the mechanical transmission of scenery".

By Article 24 of the 1971 law, works were "regarded as published as of the date of placing it within reach of the public for the first time". According to the 2004 Coalition Provision Authority Order Number 83: Amendment to the Copyright Law (WIPO Lex No. IQ003) (also at [3]), works in the public domain in their country of origin on May 1, 2004 remain public domain in Iraq.

I would also welcome comments on whether the "May 1" dates before 2000 should be "January 1" for some reason. The 1971 law seems not to follow the end-of-year rule: Article 20 says "from the date of" repeatedly, and Article 22 says "The period of protection for works published for the first time after the author's death shall be calculated as from the date of his death." Articles 9 uses the phrase "elapse of one year as from the date of applying for approval for translation" and Article 23 uses the phrase "If three months elapse as from the date of notification". --Closeapple (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)