Template talk:PD-Ukraine

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

Supreme Court interpretation[edit]

There is no possibility to create legal situations individually without clear interpretation of the court - in this case - The Supreme Court of Ukraine .Private interpretations of terms of adopting law ( especially in question of date of securing of copyright) is unacceptable. The interpretation of law by Russian Federation Supreme Court is not the only one and has not be adopted to other successors of Soviet Union. Andros64 11:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Where have you seen the Russian Supreme Court? Alex Spade 13:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Because it is copy of your arguments towards PD-Russia supported on jurisdiction of Supreme Court of RF.
Falsehood. Rus. Supreme Court is saying about other problem. Alex Spade 17:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Especially for this reason :

"Section VI Final Provisions 1.This Law shall come into force on the day of its publication, and shall apply to the legal relations that arise after it has taken effect." [1]

It is clear regulation of Ukrainian Copyright Law (3792-12) ( 1993 , changed 2001, in today version). Andros64 12:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


  1. First, there is no date Jan. 1, 1952 in Ukraine law - the date is Jan. 1, 1951 - because the increasing time of protection was made in 2001, when works, which had been publicated in 1951, were still copurighted, they could be in PD, only after Jan.1, 2002 - but time of protection had been changed early.
  2. Second, the date Jan. 1, 1951 is moving down to Jan. 1, 1946, according to US-law[2].
That' all. The same was written in previous version [3] exepting the error with Jan. 1, 1952, instead Jan.1, 1951.
So. I have changed nothing exept correction of date and making comment about films (which are corporative copyright). Alex Spade 13:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • US law has nothing to do with Ukrainian copyright. I'm waiting for Your proof from jurisdiction of Supreme Court of Ukraine. You are right as to the date Jan.1,1951 Andros64 15:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • US-law is nothing for Ukrainian one. But we are not in Ukraine, we are in USA on Wikimedia Commons project - here the rule "work must be in PD both in US and country of origin" is acting - see Commons:Licensing#Interaction of United States copyright law and foreign copyright law. Alex Spade 15:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • See Berne Convention art.5 as for the rules. Andros64 15:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
      • See Wiki-Commons rules. You, can also ask User:Lupo for its interpretation.
      • I know this article of BC. But it doesn't acting in US as it is writed in BC. The each country-participant can make time of protection more than in BC and it cann't make time lesser (after joinging to BC). Alex Spade 15:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
        • User:Lupo is not a court.It is his private opinion. Andros64 15:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
          • No, he isn't. But he is commons-admin and may be he can explain this problem to you better than I. Alex Spade 15:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I am waiting for clear interpretation of Supreme Court of Ukraine.And BC is the supreme copyright law. There is no reason to restrict copyright rules over the country of origin.International law is clear in such situations.

Lupo is just one of fifty admins in Commons. You just may not change the template such way. It is forcible serious change of rules in Commons, made by one user. You just have no right to do it such way.

Best regards: Andros64 16:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Dear Andors64. I'm not changing. I have rewritten that it was written in version of May 30, 2007. "A Ukrainian ... work that is in the public domain in Ukraine according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Ukraine in 1995".
Just you want to change the rule, so you must prove that this table and § 104A. Copyright in restored works isn't correct. Alex Spade 17:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
BC is not the supreme absolute copyright law. It is frame. The time of protection in article 5 of BC is described in point (1-2) (outside CoO) and (3) (inside CoO). The point (4) is saying about - "what is CoO?", it is not saying about "how long is time of protection?" Don't mis article 5 of BC and article 3 of Ukrainian law - they are similar, but they are not sayning about same things. Alex Spade 17:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So just restore exactly the version, you have written above (of May 30, 2007), with correction of date to 1951 of course . It will be no problem. But don't create rules on your own, please. Best regards: Andros64 17:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For what purpose? My version is saying about same - only exept films. Alex Spade 17:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
If it is the same in fact , that's no problem to restore. Just restore .Just do it. And in discussion put the particular question of films. I think, when it will be reasonable, that's no problem to supply template version of May 30, 2007 in this particular subject few days later.

But it is not possible to make so deep changes in template on your own such way as before.

Best regards: Andros64 17:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What is problem with films? Alex Spade 17:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
For me and for Commons it is no problem at all. :)

Andros64 18:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Soviet works question[edit]

The template states that it applies to Ukrainian or Soviet works - does it only apply to Soviet works created in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (or any other components fo what became modern Ukraine) or does it apply to works created in the WHOLE of the Soviet Union (i.e. in Russia etc)?Nigel Ish (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Only for work publicated in Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Alex Spade (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I changed "Soviet" to "Ukrainian SSR" then, to be more specific. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Бой Максима Кривоноса с Иеремией Вишневецким.jpg[edit]

The above deletion request states, that new Ukraine copyright law restored 70 years term for works covered by this template. Please help resolve that. A.J. (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification[edit]

Having read a series of changes to Ukrainian laws, I would like to request changing the current formulation:

"This file is a Ukrainian or Ukrainian SSR work and it is presently in the public domain in Ukraine, because it was published before January 1, 1951, and the creator (if known) died before that date. (This is the effect of the retroactive Ukrainian copyright law of 1993 and the copyright from 50 to 70 years in 2001.)
A Ukrainian or Ukrainian SSR work that is in the public domain in Ukraine according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Ukraine before January 1, 1996, e.g. if it was published before January 1, 1946 and the creator died before this date, and no copyright was registered in the U.S. (This is the combined effect of the retroactive [4], Ukraine's joining the Berne Convention in 1996, and of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.)"

to the new one:

"This file is a Ukrainian or Ukrainian SSR work and it is presently in the public domain in Ukraine, because its creator died before January 1, 1951, or the creator is unknown and it was published before January 1, 1951. (This is the effect of the non-retroactive Ukrainian copyright law of 1993 and the copyright from 50 to 70 years in 2001.)
A Ukrainian or Ukrainian SSR work that is in the public domain in Ukraine according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Ukraine as of October 26, 2001 and no copyright was registered in the U.S."

2001 copyright extension[edit]

The 2001 copyright extension (English version, Ukrainian original) contains the following provision (Final provisions, Paragraph 4):

"To establish that after the date of entry into force of this Law the terms of protection of copyright stipulated in Article 28 of this Law and parts 1 and 2 of Article 44 of this Law shall apply in all cases when the 50-year period of validity of copyright after the author's death or the period of validity of related rights has not expired prior to the date of entry into force of this Law.
Установити, що починаючи з дня набрання чинності цим Законом строки охорони авторського права, передбачені статтею 28 і частинами першою і другою статті 44 цього Закону, застосовуються у всіх випадках, коли 50-річний строк дії авторського права після смерті автора або строк дії суміжних прав не закінчився до дня набрання чинності цим Законом."

This should mean that this law keeps in public domain all works where creator's 50 years pma have expired, and this places absolutely no restrictions on the date of publication for such authors. It is unclear whether it contains any provisions for unknown creators (I kept or the creator is unknown and it was published before January 1, 1951, but I am not sure this norm was kept)

URAA effect[edit]

While joining Berne Convention in 1995/96, Ukraine stated that (English version, Ukrainian original):

"According to Article 18(3) of the said Convention as so revised, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine declares that the above-mentioned Convention will not apply to literary and artistic works which on the date of entering into force by this Convention for Ukraine are already public domain on its territory.
...дія зазначеної Конвенції не поширюється на твори, які на дату набрання чинності цією Конвенцією для України вже є на її території суспільним надбанням"

This declaration was cancelled by 2001 copyright extension (English version, Ukrainian original) contains the following provision (Final provisions, Paragraph 9):

"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine shall notify the General Director of the World Intellectual Property Organization of the fact that Article 18 of the Berne Convention, after the date of entry into force of this Law, is in full effect in the territory of Ukraine.
Доручити Міністерству закордонних справ України повідомити Генеральному директорові Всесвітньої організації інтелектуальної власності про те, що стаття 18 Бернської конвенції про охорону літературних і художніх творів (Паризького акта від 24 липня 1971 року, зміненого 2 жовтня 1979 року) від дня набрання чинності цим Законом діє на території України в повному обсязі."

Ukraine was not subject to any other copyright treaty, nor it was a WTO member before 2002.

This should mean that URAA date for Ukraine is 1 January 1996 for all works that were not in public domain by this date, and for all works without exception since 26 October 2001 (the date the copyright extension took effect). This means all works that were in public domain as of 1 January 1996 got their URAA protection only on 16 October 2001. This takes us back to the 1993 revision of the law to know what was public domain as of 1 January 1996.

1993 revision[edit]

The first and important notice that 1993 revision was published on 29 March 1994 and did not concern any works that were public domain as of this date (Ukrainian original, no official English translation):

"Установити, що передбачений статтею 24 Закону України "Про авторське право і суміжні права" ( 3792-12 ) термін охорони прав авторів застосовується до творів, на які термін дії авторського права до опублікування цього Закону не закінчився.
To establish that the terms of protection of copyright stipulated in Article 24 of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights shall apply for all works when the period of validity of copyright has not expired prior to the date of entry into force of this Law. "

The validity of copyright before this law entered into force was 25 years pma without exceptions (Article 493 of the Civic Code of the Ukrainian SSR, Ukrainian version, no official English translation):

"Авторське право діє протягом усього життя автора і 25 років після його смерті, рахуючи з 1 січня року, який настає за роком смерті автора.
Copyright shall remain in effect throughout the author's lifetime and for 25 years after his death, accounted from January 1 of the year that follows the year of death."

This means that all works whose authors died before 1 January 1969 without exception are in public domain according to this law. Further provisions are irrelevant as this law granted 50 years pma protection (1969+50=2019, which is already covered by 2001 revision). Although copyright on some of these works was restored in 2001, this means that all works that were in public domain as of 18 October 2001 were also in public domain as of 1 January 1996 where Berne Convention took partial effect in Ukraine.

Summary of changes[edit]

  • Publication before 1 January 1951 is not required by the law, the only important date is author's date of death
  • It is unclear what effect these changes had on anonymous works
  • URAA did not add any additional copyright protection, as all works receiving additional protection by URAA are already protected in Ukraine

Thanks — NickK (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, but the 1993 Law says 'Установити, що передбачений статтею 24 Закону України "Про авторське право і суміжні права" ( 3792-12 ) термін охорони прав авторів застосовується до творів, на які термін дії авторського права до опублікування цього Закону не закінчився.' which means that in 1994 all works which author died before 1969 are stay in PD (previous 1963 law gave 25 years term, and all before-1969-author-died works already were in PD in 1994), then in 1996 Ukraine joined Berne Convention with note that 'дія зазначеної Конвенції не поширюється на твори, які на дату набрання чинності цією Конвенцією для України вже є на її території суспільним надбанням' (it means that before-1969-author-died works are still in PD too), 2001 Law removes that note, but says that Article 18 of the Berne Convention, after the date of entry into force of this Law, is in full effect in the territory of Ukraine. Article 18 means that works which were already in PD are stay there, so before-1969-author-died works should stay in PD after these changes. And we should change 1951 to 1969.--Anatoliy (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can see from WIPO page, Ukraine did not agree in 1996 exactly with Article 18. Anyway, all works in public domain as of 1996 were not part of Berne Convention. The only public domain works that were indeed part of Berne Convention in Ukraine are those that were not in public domain as of 1 January 1996, but entered into public domain before 26 October 2001. However, as all authors who died before 1969 were already in PD, no new works could enter PD between 1996 and 2001. In 2001 Ukraine simulatenously added public domain works to Berne Convention and extended copyright, thus this change could not violate Article 18 of the Berne Convention — NickK (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your thorough analysis! It sounds convincing, though I'll try to verify it to the best of my knowledge.
Redarding anonymous works. Since the newest 2001 revision of the Ukrainian copyright law contains the provision that "Berne Convention, after the date of entry into force of this Law, is in full effect in the territory of Ukraine" (I used your translation here), it means that indeed the publication date is important for works by unknown authors. This is so because Article 7 of the Berne Convention contains the following statement: "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." --DixonD (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
A clarification is needed about the following: the law uses the word anonymous, not unknown. It therefore seems that we should also use this word (per COM:Anonymous and en:orphan works). --Eleassar (t/p) 17:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it does. The previous version had the clause it was published before January 1, 1951, and the creator (if known) died before that date, but I have not identified where this condition is coming from. I have not found any clear statement about works published before 1951 by unknown creators, so I do not know whether it should be kept or removed. There is no clear statement as well concerning anonymous works: whether copyright was extended on those published before 1951 or not — NickK (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
This was added by Alex Bakharev, who seems to be still active, so you can ask him. Otherwise, if there is no source for this condition, it is best to remove it. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Isn't the 2001 law on Article 18 in the Berne Convention essentially a "URAA restoration" in Ukraine? Under the Universal Copyright Convention, Ukraine probably didn't protect foreign works created before 27 May 1973, and it sounds as if this law granted copyright for such works in Ukraine. Commons and US law only care about the copyright status in Ukraine if Ukraine is the source country of the work, but Ukrainian works seem to be unaffected by this law.
Be careful with this wording: "This file is a Ukrainian or Ukrainian SSR work and it is presently in the public domain in Ukraine, because its creator died before January 1, 1951, or the creator is unknown and it was published before January 1, 1951." The wording might be incorrect for posthumously published anonymous works. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it seems that URAA date for Ukraine is effectively the date when 2001 changes took effect (however, protection of foreign works took effect with 1993 law, although it has no effect on Commons). Concerning the wording, I have previously stated that anonymous works are not covered accurately enough by the law, so I kept the clause or the creator is unknown and it was published before January 1, 1951 as it is currently in the template, please propose better wording if you can. Thanks — NickK (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I've asked for comment at User talk:Alex Bakharev. I hope that we can solve this issue on the basis of a reliable source. If not, I don't undestand why should we keep an unsourced provision in the tag. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
No, there is no indication that there were any copyright restorations of Ukrainian works in the US on that date - it only says that Ukraine restored the copyright to US works (and various other non-Ukrainian works) on that date. Protection of non-Ukrainian works took effect on 27 May 1973 when the Soviet Union ratified the Universal Copyright Convention, but the Universal Copyright Convention didn't require Ukraine to protect non-Ukrainian works created before 27 May 1973. However, article 18 of the Berne Convention (which it says that Ukraine implemented in the 2001 law) requires Ukraine to protect non-Ukrainian works created before 27 May 1973. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
You are right, except that before 2001 only Ukrainian public domain works were exempt from Berne Convention, all non-Ukrainian works were already covered in 1995. This does not matter much however as Commons servers are not in Ukraine and we do not really care how Ukraine protected non-Ukrainian works — NickK (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify: should author be unknown in general or unknown for us (and someone may know the author, but if he do not say us we do not know author)?--Anatoliy (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that at very least there should be no means to identify the author at all (say, original publication does not give any clue about the identity of the author). I don't think it is fare enough to state like "I don't know the author, but someone else knows, so let's still say the author is unknown" — NickK (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, guys, I am of little help to you. I have created the template in 2006 based on {{PD-Russia}} and the corresponded decisions of Ukrainian Rada that somebody has referred me to. It was like 7 years ago, I have not edited the template since then, I am not an expert in Ukrainian copyright law and its application to Bern convention, so I trust you guys would make a right decision. Alex Bakharev (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply in any case. If we can't be sure about whether these images are free, we should ask a legal expert to advise us or remove the clause. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)