Category talk:Theaters in Mongolia

Copyright law

In Mongolias copyright law there is no any statutes that saying anything with 1948 you can search and verify here: http://legalinfo.mn/law/details/283?lawid=283 , That [Unesco link] is showing only 1999 version plus it is a dead link!! but my original version is showing 2006 version so the later version is valid obviously! Orgio89 (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama discussion is copied here regarding the images

The following discussion is originally located here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama

At this link someone has entered the misunderstood warning about copyright law of Mongolia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Theaters_in_Mongolia ; Plus the COM:FOP Mongolia link in the red frame says only expired 1999 version of the law plus the original law link is dead! But I have found the 2006 law version here that the whole warning thing is incorrect. In that 2006 version please do search function of "1948" and there is no any statute regarding 1948. Thank you. Orgio89 (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is a newer law; 2006 law in English is here. Just like the old law, the term is life plus 50 years. So 50 years ago is 1968; if an architect or author died before then, their works are now expired. Otherwise, they are still under copyright. The new exceptions to copyright is article 24, and while changed I do not see a FoP provision. It says buildings in public places can be used in the course of reporting current events, but that is all. Looks like the theaters page had 70 though instead of 50; another user just fixed that. So it should be 1968 and not 1948. (And next year, it will be 1969, etc.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

1948 is 70 years ago. That was wrong, and I corrected it to 50. While the Google translation is pretty bad, I see nothing that jumps out as a freedom of panorama section, except Article 24, which reads like a fair use clause but does say "The following cases which are not in conflict with the legal nature of the work of the work and the legitimate interests of the right holders shall not be considered as a violation of copyright: ... 24.1.6. Publish the buildings, the art of art and the photographs placed on public premises on the premises for displaying the situation". My tendency is not to read that as enough, but having even a semi-strong conclusion based on Google Translate would be silly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

This was written before Carl Lindberg posted; given his English translation, I see article 24 as clearly a fairly normal fair use clause.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)