Commons:Batch uploading/Works of Maurice Ravel

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

Works of Maurice Ravel[edit]

All files from,_Maurice can be uploaded to Commons (57 files).

Maurice Ravel's works are in the public domain in France since a decision by the Cour de cassation in 2007 (French Supreme Court). See Wikipedia articles for details. There are about 35 published before 1923, for which there is no URAA issue. Yann (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Compositions by Maurice Ravel
License {{PD-old}}


Assigned to Progress Bot name Category
  • Waiting for the backlog of this page may take longer time than manual uploading 57 images using Special:UploadWizard. Bennylin (yes?) 12:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • If you would just had a look at the page or at least a bit of music knowledge...; but today I am bountiful and do not respond with other unhelpful comments. I just ask me how you could became steward with those hasty comments. If you want to help, you could take upload requests or analyze them carefully. Or are you even paid by WMF to advertise UpWiz?
  • Please make some suggestions how to get a good descriptions from the page. (Including a custom template, categories, ...)
  • Page structure:
  • {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} is not a valid license template (says that right on it!). Works should be verified as being PD or otherwise free in the US before uploading. Otherwise you're just adding to the Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review workload. cmadler (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Pre-1923 works should be tagged with {{PD-1923}} to cover US copyright status. Post-1923 works are probably still copyrighted in the US, and should not be uploaded without investigation into the status. cmadler (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Is this tag necessary even for non-US works? Yann (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, because works on Commons must be free in both the country of origin and the US. (Right on {{PD-old}}, it says, "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States.") Alternatively, {{PD-old-70-1923}} is a single template covering both the US and French copyright. cmadler (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Actually, now that I look at it, I don't think any of his works are in public domain in France, the country of origin. The Cour de cassation ruling found that the prorogations de guerre (extensions for the two World Wars) were superceded by later copyright laws, but only for non-musical works. Since we're discussing musical works, the prorogations still need to be taken into account. Works published through 1920 get an additional 14 years, 272 days, while works published from 1920 through 1947 (since Ravel died in 1937, this covers all the rest of his works) get an additional 8 years, 120 days. So Ravel's works through 1920 are copyrighted in France until late 2022 (272 days gets you almost to the end of September), while his post-1920 works are copyrighted in France until 2016 (120 days goes to late April). cmadler (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The Cour de cassation did not mention the type of works to which its ruling applies. Yann (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
      • If I understand correctly, the 2007 Cour de cassation ruling related primarily to the 1997 law, which had extended the normal duration for non-musical works from 50 years to 70 years (but was not cumulative with the war extensions), and dealt specifically with the works of two painters, Monet and Boldini. But musical works had already been extended to 70 years pma in 1985, by the "Lang" law, and in the 2007 ruling, the court found that this law was cumulative with the war extensions ("la loi du 3 juillet 1985 avait porté à 70 ans la durée de protection normale, de sorte que les bénéficiaires des prorogations de guerre applicables à cette date pouvaient prétendre à une durée de protection excédant 70 ans"), but only in the case of composers who had already "acquired" the right (already died, starting the copyright clock) prior to July 1992. Have I misunderstood an aspect of this? cmadler (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
      • After its two rulings, the Cour de Cassation summarized the situation in its annual report for 2007. It mentions the particular situation of musical works, in the terms quoted above by cmadler. However, as the 2007 rulings were not about music or Ravel, there are apparently still some arguments about how to interpret and apply the principles and how the computation of the term of protection should be done in the specific case of Ravel and, depending on the result, if his works are still under copyright in France or if they are in the public domain there. This 2008 article concluded that, at that time, the question was still uncertain but that commentators seemed to lean more toward the theory of the longer term of protection. Anyway, it seems that the SACEM still perceives money relating to the author's rights of Ravel's works for the uses of those works "à l'étranger" (outside of France, in some countries where the works are still under copyright).[1]. I didn't find something telling clearly if they still perceived fees from the uses of Ravel's works in France after 2008. If the works are still under copyright in France and given the sums of money that would represent, it is somewhat surprising that no litigation is found. It may not help clarify the situation that the money perceived from the copyright used to be claimed by a mysterious offshore company, although I suppose that does not affect the term of protection. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)