Commons talk:Stamps/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Germany

Hi. We should consider removing "* For the graphic art the copyright of the graphic artist may apply, so stamps have to be shown complete" from this unsourced edit to Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Germany per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-German stamps and all it tags.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done  — Jeff G. ツ 19:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you cannot do that. It is clearly basically correct. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:German stamp- Marlene Dietrich crop.PNG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

File:German stamp- Marlene Dietrich crop.PNG

File:German stamp- Marlene Dietrich crop.PNG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

  — Jeff G. ツ 02:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Indonesia

I note that commons:Stamps/Public domain templates lists {{PD-IDGov}}, but it's not discussed on this page. Before adding it though, I suspect that stamps are one of the exceptions mentioned in item b of the copyright law; on Indonesia's official philatelic website [1] (click on English, then Stamp Publication Policy, the url handling is squirrely) the policy states "Stamp’s copyright, commemoration stamp and stamp printed postal stationary plus stamp book is in the hand of the Director-General" and "Reproduction of stamp must at first gain written permit from the Director General." No way to tell if this is intended to be indefinite, or has the 50-year expiration date of other copyrighted works. Stan Shebs (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

According to COM:L#Indonesia, the 2002 law states that: publication and/or distribution of any work that has been published and/or distributed by or in the name of the Government, except if the copyright of the object is stated as protected, either in law or in writing on the work, at the time the work was published and/or distributed are not subject to copyright violations. The above, taken on conjunction with the philatelic website's statement, would imply that post 2002 stamps are certainly copyright but pre-2002 would need some more research. A WIPO search brings up several Indonesian copyright documents, the earliest of which seems to be 1982, but they would need careful reading before we can make any definitive statement. Ww2censor (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Joseph de La Nézière

I suppose that File:Stamp Mauritania 1913 2c.jpg was one of fr:Joseph de La Nézière's designs, and he died in 1944, so stamp can't be PD yet. If somebody can confirm my reasoning, then we should add him to our list here. Stan Shebs (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

German stamps... again

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-German stamps and all it tags 2. Sebjarod (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-German stamps.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

This deletion discussion may be of interest to other philatelists. Ww2censor (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the same thing all over again. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:1995 John Lennon..jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Archived under Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_30#Common_sense. Sebjarod (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan

I am still confused by the provided clarifications. Can we upload any Pakistan stamp images on Commons under {{PD-Pakistan}} or not? Or must we upload them only on Wikipedia under "fair use" condition? Please clarify this further. --Michael Romanov (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the postings are inaccurate interpretations of the Copyright, Ordinance (No. XXXIV), as consolidated in 2000 found here which states in

Section 2 (m) “Government work” means a work which is made or published by or under the direction or control of— (i) the Government or any department of the Government,

Section 13 (d) in the case of a Government work, Government shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein and finally

22 (1) Copyright in a Government work shall, where Government is the first owner of the copyright therein, subsist until fifty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work is first published.

From this document I read that we can only use images older than 50 years here so a few of the images in Category:Stamps of Pakistan should be deleted. In the past I have nominated newer images for deletion based on COM:L#Pakistan and they have been deleted, so we can only use newer image on the enwiki under fair-use but only in articles about the stamps. Some of the images in Postage stamps and postal history of Pakistan need to be moved over here; en:File:Pakistan Khyber Pass stamps.jpg has a fair-use rationale but is clearly PD, others I need to look up their date of issue. Ww2censor (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Mozambique

Mozambique is not listed on this page and so I'm not sure what to do regarding mislicensed images in Category:Stamps of Mozambique. – Adrignola talk 13:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the Mozambique copyright law instituted in 2001 copyright subsists for 70 years following completion for "works of applied art" which appears to cover stamps so {{PD-old}} applies. Ww2censor (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll update this page to note that as well. – Adrignola talk 17:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer for others knowledgeable editors to comment before modifying the related pages. Ww2censor (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Nepal

I responded to a question about Nepalese stamp copyright status, but before making an appropriate template need to determine whether stamps are considered as applied art or not? See CT:L#Stamps of Nepal and the next post. The answer will determine if the copyright period is 50 years or 25 years per Nepal's The Copyright Act, 2059 (2002). Ww2censor (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt the term "applied art" can be attributed to postage stamps. So, I would suggest using a 50-year period for Nepalese stamps. --Michael Romanov (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That was my feeling too. Ww2censor (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Moldova

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stamp of Moldova 012.jpg; it seems Posta Moldova replied to an inquiry saying the believe that copyright exists on the stamps. It may not be definitive, but it may be an indication that the interpretation of stamps coming under their copyright exemptions may not be accurate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Let us first cite what exactly Moldovan laws say on the subject:

ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ Правительства Республики Молдова № 1254 от 10.11.2008 "Об утверждении Положения о почтовых марках, цельных вещах и специальных почтовых штемпелях Республики Молдова" (Опубликован: 18.11.2008 в Monitorul Oficial Nr. 206-207, статья №: 1268) [2]:

"... почтовая марка – знак оплаты почтовых услуг, имеющий любую форму, при условии, что его размеры по вертикали и горизонтали должны быть не меньше 15 мм и не больше 50 мм, изготовленный с помощью одноцветной или многоцветной печати, с клеем или без клея, наклеиваемый на почтовые отправления или напечатанный типографским способом в случае цельной вещи, который используется для оплаты пересылки почтовых отправлений от отправителя до получателя, согласно действующим тарифам; ..."

English translation: Decree No. 1254 of the Government of Republic of Moldova dated November 10, 2008 On Approving the Regulations on Postage Stamps, Postal Stationery and Special Cancels of Republic of Moldova (Published: November 18, 2008 in Monitorul Oficial Nr. 206-207, Article No.: 1268):

"... Postage stamp shall mean a sign of payment for postal services, having any form, provided that its vertical and horizontal size must be no less than 15 mm and no more than 50 mm, produced using one-coloured or multi-coloured printing, with or without glue, glued on mail or printed typographically in case of postal stationery, which is used to pay for sending of mal from sender to receiver, according to existing tariffs; ...".

So you can see that Decree No. 1254 expressly defines postage stamps as signs of payment for postal services (unfortunately I have found its text only in Russian, so I have to translate it myself). --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Leonid. 15:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Algeria

I scan two algerian stamps of 2005 with picture of Numidian kings. My question is, can i import them to Commence ?, if yes with what license? -- Vikoula5 17:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No because according to Commons:L#Algeria the Algerian copyright generally lasts for 50 years. Ww2censor (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Pity, thank you for your answer. But Algerian stamps also are in the category ok photography ?? there are an other licence Template:PD-Algeria-photo-except for the stamps of 2003, 2002, or no ?-- Vikoula5 19:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No, they are not true photography in most instance. Most recent stamps of most countries are copyright per these and linked pages Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates. Ww2censor (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok understand -- Vikoula5 19:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC

Lebanon?

Anybody know? I found a few old airmail letters. They bear varying inscriptions: "P. Koroleff", "V. Pliss", or "F. Ott". The letters themselves are from 1953-57. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Per Commons:L#Lebanon there is a 50 year pma rule unless you have any different evidence that it does not apply to stamps, so it looks like uploading your letter will be ok, if the author is anonymous. Ww2censor (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"all countries"

"All countries" at the bottom of Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates claims {{PD-old}} is OK for "upload date minus 70 years". What is the rationale for this? It seems wrong. Rd232 (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems completely wrong to me, too. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Leonid Dzhepko, who is a legal translator, added it back in 2007. He is not active here but you can find him on the ruwiki at Л.П. Джепко, so it may be worth contacting him. Ww2censor (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess that at that time I just took the maximum protected period as a default for all countries not reviewed and included yet. --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The page Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates looks very strange. For a lot of countries, it says that you should use a template which says that the stamp designer died more than n years ago, yet there is also a statement saying that you can upload any stamp published more than n years ago. Death more than n years ago is not the same thing as publication n years ago. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the status of Tunisian stamps?

Ebaychatter0 (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

According to this licence {{PD-Tunisia}} the usual copyright is 50 years pma supported by the linked documents at WIPO. Ww2censor (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Map colors not very intuitive

In my opinion the map File:PD-Stamps in Euroasia.PNG which is used here is a bit irritating: For "Stamps are in Public Domain", the color red was chosen - but usually red means "stop!" So, my first impression when looking at this map is "stamps are not in the public domain in the countries marked red". Therefore I suggest changing red to dark green (light green for "Stamps are in public domain before laws were changed" seems to fit). Other opinions? Gestumblindi (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

+1 yep, would be better, -jkb- (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Moldovan Stamps

I recently closed a CFD about Moldovan Stamps. I was then notified that the situation is not as clear as it appeared. Of the two most recent deletion requests I found, one was closed as keep, the other as delete. Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#Moldova says that the stamps are OK and refers to Template:PD-MD-exempt which states that the stamps are not OK. Which one is correct? --rimshot^talk 20:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you really need to take into careful consideration what User:Leonid Dzhepko wrote at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stamp of Moldova 012.jpg about 18 months ago as well as this Commons talk:Stamps/Public domain#Moldova. His legal expertise in Russian and Russian law has confirmed these stamps are PD, unless the law been changed since then, and even if that were the case, I doubt it would have been retroactively enacted by any law. Remember that many postal authorities, and other orgnaisations, museums, etc., claim copyright over their product or images, even for older items, which are well proven to be PD. I never saw this deletion discusssion but would have objected had I known. User:Zscout370 changed the Moldova template without any reference to the discussions that had previously taken place on this very issue. I suggest a review of this copyright template change is necessary because I think it was improperly made and in opposition to the decision of a then recent deletion discussion as mentioned above. We had a full discussion about the letter he based his template edit on. As far as I was concerned the matter was settled but without the involvement of philatelists, especially some who speak and understand Russian the matter is very much conjecture. Ww2censor (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Dagestan stamps

I found a cool stamp with Freddie Mercurie at Dagestan stamp. Are Dagestan stamps in PD? -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The same question relates to Republics w:Mari El (Marijel), w:Mordovia and Komi, see stamps with Mercurie: [3]. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, these are all fakes. All above mentioned territories are part of Russia and do not issue their own postage stamps. So for sure there is no PD for these cinderellas. --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hungary

• Refer to archived 2009 discussion Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 23#Hungarian stamps copyright

I have taken out the recently added statement on Hungary (here added by Cekli829), as there was no reference to a legal act or case law that covers the assertion that all stamp artwork is public domain. I don't doubt that those with local knowledge understand this to be true, and I would be happy to see this put back in, if elaborated with a reference that can be verified. We should be cautious to ensure that any reuser is protected if challenged and this guidance list needs to be accurate and up to date with a high level of confidence. --Fæ (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This work is not covered by copyright. According to the Hungarian copyright act of 1999 (Act No. LXXVI. of 1999 on Copyright):

I.4 The protection provided by this Act shall not cover legal provisions, other means of state direction, court and other official resolutions, announcements and documents issued by an authority or other official organ, as well as standards made obligatory by law and other similar regulations.

I.7 The expressions of folklore may not enjoy copyright protection. However, this may not prejudice copyright protection due to the author of a folk-art-inspired work of individual and original nature.

Thanks in advance. --Cekli829 (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this research, it is very helpful. On the basis that the Magyar Posta, though a self-supporting commercial company, is state owned and acts as an agent of the government under taxation, I am happy to assume this is sufficient to verify the assertion of PD status for the artwork they (presumably) commission for postage stamps. I'll add the text back in with this reference. I suggest if anyone has some extra information to add, or objections, they are discussed here. --Fæ (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise someone had better review the 1000+ stamps in Category:Stamps of Hungary by year and its sub categories, most of which, from a cursory glance, likely use this licence. However, some of the older years will be PD by age anyway. Ww2censor (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, we are just tidying up the guidance here.

I don't really understand why the second paragraph is quoted on the PD template (about "folklore may not enjoy copyright protection"), how is this directly relevant to postage stamps? --Fæ (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about the 2009 discussion in which User:Tgr suggested that 7O+ pma applies to Hungarian stamps, so maybe we should contact him on the Hungarian wiki, where he is active, as he may have a better take on it. Ww2censor (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Certainly worth a notification. If there is a counterargument against interpreting the 1999 act as applying to postage stamps (or the PD status is limited to certain periods), then it should be laid out so that we can reach a credible consensus. --Fæ (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

See Expert Opinion 2001/9 of the Council of Copyright Experts (unfortunately I don't think an English translation exists) which is about applying the "means of state direction" clause to bank notes. If I understand correctly, the Council takes the position that the clause can only be applied when the actual usage is related to the direction of the state: when a new banknote is published in the Hungarian Official Journal, it is a means of state direction, and the exception applies, but when the same banknote is shown in a book, it is not a means of state direction, and the exception does not apply, so the authorization of the copyright holder is necessary. The same logic should apply to stamps as well. --Tgr (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Laws saying that legal documents are exempted from copyright sometimes only apply to literary works whereas in other cases they also apply to included artistic works. Unfortunately, it is often not clearly indicated in the Commons templates whether a given template applies to artistic works or not (and it is often not always obvious from the law itself and you might sometimes need to read background documents and the like to know what the lawmaker meant). Does the Hungarian law cover artistic works, or does it only cover literary works? --Stefan4 (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no explicit limitation in the law, and the only analysis I know of is the aforementioned expert opinion, which points out some unwanted consequences from interpreting the law too widely (e.g. a PhD dissertation is "means of state direction", regulated and certified by law and required for certain positions, but it is definitely copyrighted), and then decides that the law does not cover banknotes. So there is a significant uncertainty on what is and what isn't covered by the law, which is sometimes a problem in Wikipedia (e.g. we upload official coats of arms of municipalities to Commons on the basis that they are defined in legal provisions and so must be PD; not sure how sound this practice is); but the stamps seem to be similar enough to the banknotes, for which the Council said no, so I would be wary. --Tgr (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tgr for your comments. So the question that needs to be answered is whether Hungarian stamps are published in the Hungarian Official Journal as "means of state direction". If so the stamps would appear to be PD, but if not then they are likely non-free and should be deleted, except of those old enough to have fallen into the public domain. Ww2censor (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. The decision for banknotes was that the same work might be not copyrighted when it appears in the Official Journal but copyrighted when you want to use it in your own magazine. So even though the exemption in I.4 of the 1999 Copyright Act applies to them when they are published in official places, or used physically on a mail, it does'nt apply anywhere else; for the purposes of Commons, they are copyrighted and cannot be uploaded.

Which is IMO a very contrived interpretation of the law. When I asked some IP lawyers about it, they said that the Council was basically trying to fix an internal inconsistency of the copyright law, while keeping up the pretense of still working within the framework of the law, not correcting but only interpreting it.

So it would have been very hard to predict their decision just based on the law and the relevant facts (like how the banknotes are being created or licensed); likewise, I don't think the copyright law and relevant facts (like whether they are published in the OJ or not) are enough to figure out the status of stamps. They are quite similar to banknotes so my bet would be they are not PD but that is just a guess. --Tgr (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I would assert that postage stamps are themselves a publication of a tax document/payment, in this case under state direction by an agent of the government. This makes them a legal document under state direction. If the state has never challenged the free reproduction of postage stamps in the past, I suggest someone writes to whoever is the Hungarian state representative for copyright and ask for a specific clarification rather than double guessing as to whether the somewhat cryptic analysis from the Council of Copyright Experts may or may not apply, before we go on a deletion purge. --Fæ (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Banknotes are "themselves a publication of a tax document/payment under state direction by an agent of the government" as well. The Council of Experts decision shows that that is not necessarily enough for a PD claim. Maybe the Hungarian chapter could ask clarification from the Ministry of Justice; we did that some years ago for coats of arms, though I think the answer was not very useful. But at the very least I would use a separate license template for images which are on such shaky legal grounds, not {{PD-HU-exempt}}. --Tgr (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic has risen again, I don't yet know what'll happen next. --grin ✎ 12:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Tuvalu etc

Does anyone know anything about the regulations concerning copyright on stamps of Tuvalu and "countries" like that: (Grenadines of) St. Vincent, Nevis, St. Lucia and Bequia? - Dick Bos (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't be sure but according to WIPO, 2009 was the year of accession of the Berne Convention by Tuvalu where a period of 50 years applies. Other states may be different. Ww2censor (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

In general, newly-independent ex-colonies have tended to take large swathes of law straight from the British version that they were using prior to independence, especially in arcane areas like copyright. So 50 years is a good starting guess - but keep in mind that the private companies that do the actual stamp designing and printing may have quietly negotiated a deal where they retain copyright themselves. Even mail sent directly to the postal administrations about these copyright questions typically garner only vague or inconsistent replies. Stan Shebs (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Mexico

I found template {{PD-MX-exempt}} which says:

According to the Mexican copyright law (23-07-2003), Article 14, case 7 & 8: "Copyright shall not apply to shields, flags or emblems of any country, state, municipality or political division; names, acronyms, symbols or emblems of international governmental organisations, or any other organization officially recognized; or legislative, regulatory, administrative or judicial texts, as well as their official translations." Hence it is assumed that this image has been released into the public domain.

Could somebody (who knows Spain) to clarify (to check): is it true that stamps of Mexico are in Public Domain? -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I have asked this question, because now Mexico is absent in the list at Commons:Stamps/Public domain :( -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not see there was ever an entry for Mexico, so it does not appear to have been removed. As I can't read Spanish, I can't advise on whether stamps would be covered by the Template above. Anyone else know anything? Ww2censor (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a point of view, that "some official interpretation" is required "that postage stamps are also covered by the law". -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This template has been used to state all Mexican stamps are PD. According to the template, a Mexican law states "Copyright shall not apply to shields, flags or emblems of any country, state, municipality or political division; or names, acronyms, symbols or emblems of international governmental organisations, or any other organization officially recognized." That law, on its face, seems to apply to a country's coat of arms, flag, etc. or names of governmental entities and not postage stamp generally. I removed it, stating that it didn't appear to apply to stamps "Unless there is some official interpretation that postage stamps are also covered by the law." I don't know what "point of view" has to do with this. Ecphora (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, but the question remains: should we remove all Mexican stamps? -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No, if there is some other exception. For example, many of the Mexican stamps currently on Commons are old and are PD under Mexican law. Up to July 24, 2003, the length of copyright was 75 years. See here. This currently is 100 years. See English translation of current Mexican copyright law Article 29 provides that copyright protection currently extends to 100 years "following the disclosure ...of works made in the course of official duties performed on behalf of the Federation ..". "Disclosure" here means publication. See Article 16. I believe the pre-July 24, 2003 law was the same except for the 75 years, so that governmental produced postage or revenue stamps that were 75 years old as of July 24, 2003, became public domain. (These are the most current laws; different rules applied to earlier periods. For example, apparently the Mexican goverment itself could not hold copyright before 1928. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico.) Ecphora (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I might have misunderstood the question. Mexican stamps should not be listed in PD. Ecphora (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that this page will contain all countries with explanations related to PD.

Thank you for your research :) related to Mexican stamps license. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Lithuania, Abkhazia

The stamps of these countries are in the PD:

• Category:Stamps of Kyrgyzstan
• Category:Stamps of Uzbekistan
• Category:Stamps of Lithuania
• Category:Stamps of Abkhazia (partially recognized country)

-- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Former countries

What about former countries that does not exist anymore as f.ex. South Yemen, Zaire, Soviet Union, Tchekoslovakia, Eastern Germany, Yugoslavia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.209.88.155 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 26 August 2013‎ (UTC)

I think there's no simple answer to this question. It depends on the individual cases and the legal successor countries, I assume. For example, Eastern Germany was basically absorbed by Western Germany and I assume that current German copyright law is applicable to works (including stamps) from Eastern Germany. The Soviet Union or Yugoslavia are probably more complicated cases, as they were split into several countries. I have no idea how to determine the applicable law for a work from e.g. Yugoslavia. Maybe others can shed more light on this matter. I would also say that this is in fact a more general question not only pertaining to stamps, maybe Commons:Village pump/Copyright would be better suited. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

We should assume, as a minimum, that the copyright terms of the old country are still in force (on the basis that they have probably been taken over by a successor state of some type), and similarly that no new copyright has been created by the successor state if the stamps were already out of copyright before the old state ceased to exist? Philafrenzy (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

I doubt this edit which suggests Sri Lankan stamps are in the public domain is accurate. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Sri Lanka their copyright protection is very restrictive and government works does not apply either, so unless there is evidence to the contrary, this should be removed. Ww2censor (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I changed it yesterday. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

United Nations

What is the status of the United Nations stamps? Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2, available in English, only these documents are in the public domain worldwide:

1. Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, ...)
2. United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
3. Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).

Could you clarify it... ►Cekli829 20:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does look like UN stamps are copyright. Exactly what copyright period is effective needs to be determined. You may want to read some of the following: en:Wikipedia:Public domain#Works of the United Nations, Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 32#Template:PD-UN, Commons:Deletion requests/Images at Category:Stamps of United Nations and this deletion nomination Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stamps of the United Nations, 2010-Slovenia.jpg. Ww2censor (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding source country, I would assume that the source country is determined in the same way as for other works: the source country is the country of first publication, and if it was first published concurrently (within 30 days) in multiple countries, it is the country out of those which has the shortest term. w:United Nations Postal Administration tells that stamps are issued in three countries: USA (denominated in USD), Austria (denominated in ATS or EUR) and Switzerland (denominated in CHF). Assuming that any stamps issued in multiple countries were issued at the same time in all three countries, just assume (as a worst case) that the source country is the country matching the currency indicated on the stamp. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

France

According to what is currently stated in this article, in France post stamps only become public domain 70 years after the death of the designer. However, in Philatelistes.net it is said that "depuis 1987, La Poste détient les droits de reproduction des timbres (avec quelques exceptions : série artistique,...)". Translation: "since 1987, La Poste owns the copyright of stamps (with several exceptions: artistic series...)". Could somebody please verify if this is true? Would that imply that post-1987 stamps will become public domain 70 years after publication, irrespective of who the designer was? I know this is a question for the very long term but I am curious. Hispalois (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a second unrelated question. According to the article, the copyright is owned by the designers of stamps. Does that mean that La Poste forgot or neglected to include a copyright provision in its contracts with all these authors!? Could you please point to any legal text that supports that interpretation? --Hispalois (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The copyright expires 70 years after the death of the stamp designer, even if the copyright is held by La Poste. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I have been checking the evolution of French legislation about copyright duration. It turns out that the 70 years mentioned here came into law only recently, in 1997. Prior to that date, 50 years were the rule (source). The table in the article should be corrected. --Hispalois (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I have deepened my study of French legislation and it happens to be more complicated than I had thought at first. The 1997 law has been interpreted to have retroactive effect, except when pre-existing copyright durations were longer than 70 years after the death of the author. Therefore the table in the article is actually correct, provided that none of the listed authors "died for France" in combat. Summing up what I have found:

Since at least the law of July 1, 1992 the works of French public agencies like La Poste, and therefore its stamps, are protected by copyright (source, legal text). It is unclear whether stamps enjoyed copyright protection before the 1992 law.

Regarding the duration of copyright in France, since 1997 it extends to 70 years after the death of the author and this 70-year period applies retroactively to any work that was not already in the public domain on 31 December 1995. Before the 1997 law the duration was 50 years (source) plus exceptional periods that had been added to compensate for the "lost years" of World War I (6.4 years) and World War II (8.3 years); plus an extra 30 years for any French author who was officially declared "dead for France" (see fr:Prorogations de guerre, legal text). French judges have established that the longest copyright period should retroactively apply to pre-1995 works: either 70 years or 50 plus the applicable exceptions (source).

In practice this means that, as of February 2014:

• the works made by any author who died before 1920 are definitely already in the public domain.
• the works made by authors who DID NOT "die for France" and died in or before 1943 are already in the public domain.
• the works made by authors who "died for France" between 1920 and 1943 have to be studied case by case.
• the works made by any author who died after 1945 are not yet in the public domain. When will they become public domain? Either 70 years after the death of the author or, if the author "died for France", 80 years after the dead of the author plus any applicable world war extensions (8.3 years for pre-1948 works and 14.7 years for pre-1918 works).

Now, the big remaining question is: were pre-1992 French stamps really considered "oeuvres de l'esprit" and therefore covered by copyright law or not? Of course if the answer is negative, all pre-1992 stamps should be considered public domain. French legislation is baroquely complicated but hopefully we'll get it right! --Hispalois (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Stamps of Chile

Chile stamps in PD? For example, it is written:

This file has fallen into the public domain according to Chilean copyright law (No. 17,336 and its amendments). Nevertheless, its author and source must be acknowledged.

--►Cekli829 13:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Not until 70 years pma according to the official English version of the Chilean Law No. 17.336 on Intellectual Property available from WIPO here. So, as with many other stamps {{PD-old}} applies to those that qualify. I seem to recall that on Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates there was an entry for most other non-named countries that indicated {{PD-old}} most likely applied. It has since been removed. Obviously each country, not mentioned there or on Commons:Stamps/Public domain needs to be individually checked to verify that 70 year pma period is correct. Ww2censor (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

For anonymous works the Chilean law establishes a copyright duration of 70 years after publication. It also defines what an anonymous work is. This may be the default case for stamps, as opposed to 70 years pma. --Hispalois (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I highly doubt that we can consider Chilean stamps to generally be anonymous works. While I have a full set of Scott catalogues they do not provide designer names but I am pretty sure a specialised catalogue will likely list those that are known. These two webpages [4] and [5] identify the designers, José Moreno Benavente and Mauricio Navarro, and no doubt with research we can find more when and where necessary. This website may well have more designer details we need. Ww2censor (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Stamps of Mexico

Mexico stamps in PD? For example, it is written:

According to the Mexican copyright law (23-07-2003), Article 14, case 7 & 8: "Copyright shall not apply to shields, flags or emblems of any country, state, municipality or political division; or names, acronyms, symbols or emblems of international governmental organisations, or any other organization officially recognized. The legislative, regulatory, administrative or judicial, as well as their official translation."

Hence it is assumed that this image has been released into the public domain.

--►Cekli829 11:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I highly doubt {{PD-MX-exempt}} applies to Mexican stamps. It is much more likely that {{PD-Mexico}} is the appropriate copyright template for works of the: Mexican government and it was published more than 100 years ago, unless you know better. Ww2censor (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Malawi

Would anyone be able to add the PD status for Malawi please? Brigade Piron (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Per Malawi's Copyright Act, 1989, the copyright term for works by individual authors is life of the author plus fifty years years and the copyright term for works by anonymous, corporate, or government authors is 50 years from the date of first publication. Since the first stamps of Malawi were issued on 6 July 1964, the earliest any stamp of Malawi will be PD is 2015 (and even then only if the artwork depicted on the stamp is a government work). I've added info for Malawi to the page. —RP88 10:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

German stamps and Argentinian meter images

These two issues are in disucssion at the Village pump at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Loriot and old German stamps and Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Postal cancellations: presumably public domain but... and I think your imput will be appreciated. Ww2censor (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Up to 10,000 German stamps may be deleted from the commons

You may not be aware of the public domain issues about the German stamps, instigated after a March 2012 German court decision, which started this Commons review process Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review that stalled late in 2012. You should read that page and its associated talk page where about 10,000 German stamps have been identified as possibly being copyright violations. A new discussion started a week ago COM:VP#What to do with German Stamps? which has prompted a start to deletion nominations in batches. However other than myself, it does not appear any German editors or philatelists have had any input. If all these stamps are removed from the commons, I estimate that the global wiki effect could be noticed in anywhere between 15–50K articles. More reviewers will be needed to determine which images are good and which must go. Some can possibly be moved to those language wikis that allow non-free media in certain circumstances like the enwiki. Please review this issue. Ww2censor (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Malaysian stamps?

Does anyone know the copyright laws regarding Malaysian postage stamps? I have one that I uploaded as fair use at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tunfatimahstamp.jpg, but I'd be interested in knowing if I can change the designation to public domain and what the laws are for Malaysian stamps in general. Asarelah (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No, not according to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Malaysia which states that copyright in Malaysian government works subsists for 50 years, so you are out of luck. Regarding the image on the enwiki, it fails the non-free policy. Stamps can be used in articles about stamps if they comply with all 10 non-free policy guidelines and should not to be used to merely illustrate the person (#3) on the stamp. The fact that a stamp was issued to commemorate that person can be communicated to the reader in prose without the use of a non-free image. I'm sorry to tell you that I will tag it for deletion there. Ww2censor (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh well. At least I know now. Thank you. Asarelah (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The 50+ mention should probably be in this specific article for postage stamps for easy reference. Asarelah (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. You may also find it useful to read my enwiki image copyright information page for a wider understanding of some of the problems images can have. Thanks for replying and understanding. Ww2censor (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

El Salvador

I just noticed some new modern stamps were uploaded based on them being in the public domain per the current text for the country Commons:Stamps/Public domain#El Salvador so I checked the page history to see what had been posted on the topic. Reading this 2007 translation, there is a clear restriction on commercial use of their stamp images, so the El Salvador entry needs updating. According to Chapter X Art 86 (c) of the Law on the Promotion and Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (Legislative Decree No. 604 of 15 July 1993) found on WIPO, legal entity works, which stamps are, are protected for 50 years counted from January 1 of the year following that of first publication. Ww2censor (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This information was removed when the copyright pages were restructured, but it may be relevant to any future discussion. Ww2censor (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Slovenia

I started a discussion on the merits of the claim that {{PD-Slovenia-exempt}} applies to modern Slovenian stamps at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beločeli deževnik znamka.png. I don't think item 2 in the template covers stamps. Thought Ww2censor (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status of stamps depicting copyrighted objects

Please see the comment of user:Iryna Harpy in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Holodomor icon.svg. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: It's quite late to be raising this topic considering it was closed around 20 months ago. File:Holodomor icon.svg is a derivative work of the public domain stamp File:Golodomor Stamps of Ukraine.JPG, so there is no problem, just as the closing admin agrees. Ww2censor (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

No the topic I rise was not closed. Yes there is a problem, stated by Iryna Harpy and ignored by the closing admin. Len me cite her here:

It's an unattributed reproduction of the image on the stamp. We have no idea of who owns the copyright. While the use of the stamp can be justified as fair usage, the copyright is not that of the uploader to claim it as their own unless they can demonstrate that they are the actual artist who owns the image, or have been given permission to upload it as their own and "... grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." The use of the image without the context of the stamp is still undoubtedly in the realms of COPYVIO. -Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

In fact, some laws specifically state that the usage of some work of art on a stamp does not void author's copyright. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue here has nothing to do with fair use, the stamp could be used as is, but it is unlikely that the image could be extracted from it and still be in public domain. Gone Postal (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Kenyan independence, transitional period

Background:

• Kenya was a colony of UK
• Kenya has achieved its independence in 1963
• Kenya had its first copyright bill as an independent country go into effect in 1966
• As of now stamps until 1968 are in public domain according to that (and subsequent) acts.

Currently Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Kenya states that before the act took effect the correct template is {{PD-UKGov}}. I have no issue what-so-ever with the fact that the old British laws would apply. However, there's a small problem that the template doesn't only state that something is a work of the government, but that it is the work of "the United Kingdom Government". This is simply incorrect, even though British laws were in effect the publisher of the new stamps was no longer British Government.

I realise that this is a pedantic question, since regardless of the template, the result is that the scans of these stamps are in public domain. But I am a pedantic individual, and so are many others. Gone Postal (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the UK entry on Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates you see that {{PD-UKGov}} is to be used for former colonies and in Kenya's case until their own new copyright law took effect. According to the 1966 Copyright Act Section 4 was enacted on 1 April 1966, so until that date {{PD-UKGov}} applies. Regarding your comment that the template states the item using it was "created by the United Kingdom Government" is a true statement but the wikilink for that text actually directs you to the Crown copyright article which is what is really meant when using the template. Perhaps for the pendants, like myself also, the wording might be altered but, due to this being used on thousands of items, we can't decide that here, it needs broader discussion, probably at the Village Pump copyright page. Ww2censor (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Transclusion: Who's on first?

I recently split up the very large Commons:Copyright rules by territory to make individual pages for each country, e.g. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Kenya. As part of the post-implementation clean-up, I am trying to bring the individual country pages up to a standard level. Information about stamps is part of this. An uploader looking for copyright rules on a stamped postcard from Kenya is more likely to see warnings if they are directly visible on the Kenya rules page. Transclusion to the rescue. The Kenya page can include a section like:

===Stamps===

{{#section-h:Commons:Stamps/Public domain|[[:Category:Stamps of Kenya|Kenya]]}}.

This will display as shown in the box below:

Stamps

But should the description be maintained here and transcluded to the country page, or should the description be moved to the country page and then transcluded here? Either way, the source section would need a comment pointing out it was being transcluded elsewhere, so should not be moved or renamed. But where is the best place to maintain the information? Are the rules for Kenyan stamps mostly an aspect of the Kenyan rules, or mostly an aspect of Stamps rules? Are there other considerations? Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Now that Aymatth2 has implemented the proposed changes I have major reservations with the implementation method and have left comments on the user's talk page. The transclusion should be in the reverse to what was done. It should be from the main Commons:Stamps/Public domain page to the individual country pages and NOT from those pages to here. If you think about the practical issue of patrolling this you will see what I'm talking about. Ww2censor (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I have a problem with the transclusion. I was a log-in user once, but now will be IP-user only. But I can't edit the Copyright rules by country pages because they are semi-protected. Regards. 2A01:CB1D:8142:2C00:7C05:4CF5:7EB8:A2EC 14:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid that decision was made independently of the transclusion, and applies to all pages that give advice on country-specific copyright rules. The concern is that many decisions on uploading files to Commons are based on this advice, so it is too risky to allow anonymous edits. This page would have been semi-protected if the content had been left here. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Ecuador

See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ecuador#Stamps. These do not appear to be public domain until date of publication + 70 years. Should more recent stamps be deleted? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Why was this edit removed from the Commons:Stamps/Public domain in the first place and not put into the country page. This is exactly part of the problem you have created. Besides which none of the citations link externally to the documents named but only back to the citation entry on the same page. Now I'm starting to see part of what you have done is proven to be a mess and virtually impossible to review. I spent quite a while trying to figure out where the Ecuador stamp info came from but you removed it with your transclusion. You are the cause of verification being removed and caused the entry to be in error when there was a verification available but you removed it. As I mentioned before your decision to transclude in the wrong direction has caused this entry to be unacceptable. How many more errors are there in all the other country entries? Ww2censor (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The note by User:Jack Child dated 00:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC) is one of the last edits he made. It asserts that he has an email that says Ecuador stamps are in the public domain, and says Ley No. 83. RO/ 320 de 19 de Mayo de 1998 is the relevant law. I removed the note during clean-up since it gives no reliable source for the PD assertion. WIPO gives a translation of Codification No. 2006­-13 of the Intellectual Property Law. The 2006 codification does not mention stamps, but the relevant articles cited in COM:CRT/Ecuador#Stamps seem to imply that recent Ecuador stamps are not in the public domain. These articles are the same in a Spanish version of the 1998 law held by the UNHCR:

• Art. 8. Las obras protegidas comprenden, entre otras, las siguientes: ... f) Las esculturas y las obras de pintura, dibujo, grabado, litografía y las historietas gráficas, tebeos, comics, así como sus ensayos o bocetos y las demás obras plásticas;
• Art. 16.- Salvo pacto en contrario o disposición especial contenida en el presente libro, la titularidad de las obras creadas bajo relación de dependencia laboral corresponderá al empleador, quien estará autorizado a ejercer los derechos morales para la explotación de la obra. En las obras creadas por encargo, la titularidad corresponderá al comitente de manera no exclusiva, por lo que el autor conservará el derecho de explotarlas en forma distinta a la contemplada en el contrato, siempre que no entrañe competencia desleal.
• Art. 81.- Si la titularidad de una obra corresponde a una persona jurídica desde su creación, el plazo de protección será de setenta años contados a partir de la realización, divulgación o publicación de la obra, el que fuere ulterior.

But ...

• Art. 10. Nos son objeto de protección: ... b) Las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias, las resoluciones judiciales y los actos, acuerdos, deliberaciones y dictámenes de los organismos públicos, así como sus traducciones oficiales.

The clean-up process replaces unsourced assertions with quotes from the relevant laws where possible. COM:CRT/Ecuador#Sources provides external links to both the English translation of the 2006 version and the Spanish text of the 1998 version. The question here is whether we have any reliable source that indicates that Ecuador stamps less than 70 years old are in the public domain. The available sources seem to indicate the contrary. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no consistency in what you said or did. Consider Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/El_Salvador#Stamps and Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Paraguay#Stamps where you accepted Dr Jack Child's statements. Did you ever bother to review his edits? BTW the external citation links in these two pages don't work either. While the pages look nice the functionality is bad. Ww2censor (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The statement on El Salvador stamps seems correct. [2017 Article 86(c)] says duration is creation + 70 years when it is not based on the author's life, as would be the case for a work commissioned by the government. I left the claim that stamps can be used for some non-commercial purposes, which seems plausible, if irrelevant. I have not yet checked the Paraguay article, so this is just the original text from the Stamps page. There is no mention of stamps in Paraguay's 1998 law. Paraguay has the typical exclusion of "official texts of legislative, administrative or judicial character, or translations thereof", but this surely does not apply to stamps. Paraguay has a "paying public domain" regime, which may also be an issue. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

There is a problem with the version of {{Citation}} on Commons, which does not create citation anchors correctly. I will see if I can get that fixed, but am not optimistic. Meanwhile, it is easy enough to click on the external links in the ==Sources== section. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, the question is whether there is any reliable source that says Ecuador stamps are all the the public domain. If not, presumably we should consider deleting images of Ecuador stamps that are less than 70 years old. Either way, {{PD-EC-exempt}} seems inappropriate. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You just decided to ignore the research and correspondence of User:Jack Child. If you accept one but ignore the other. I just wonder what else you have changed without any discussion with others topic specialists. Ww2censor (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

While cleaning up I found a discrepancy between what we had been saying and the available sources, so raised the issue here. We cannot give our contributors advice based on assertions like "I got an email that said it was allowed". Again, is there any reliable source that says Ecuador stamps are all the the public domain? The laws seem to say not. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Since no sources have been identified, I have changed the advice to "not free". Aymatth2 (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

You don't know the circumstances, or the investigations User:Jack Child made. Probably only User:Stan Shebs and I are the only ones who remember that long ago and as I stated in my criticism of the transclusion method, there is basically no way to patrol and review any changes you made, to any of the stamp copyright statements, as I have already stated. Based on this Ecuador status I certainly cannot trust anything you have done, without critical review, because there is no way to tell the changes you have decided to make on your own volition without any oversight, review or discussion. Ww2censor (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Paraguay

See COM:CRT/Paraguay#Stamps. Nothing in the Paraguay law indicates that stamps are free. Even public domain works are non-free. But User:Jack Child has quoted an email on this talk page saying "Dear Dr., the postage stamps of our country are in the public domain and images of these stamps may be reproduced without special permission. We hope to be able to count on some of these materials for our library." My guess is that the respondent did not understand the question or missed an important qualifier to their statement. If no reliable sources are identified to support the "public domain" claim, I propose to change our advice to "Not Free". Aymatth2 (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Since no sources have been identified, I have changed the advice to "not free". Aymatth2 (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)