File talk:Joko Widodo Lombok Earthquake damage.jpg
跳至導覽
跳至搜尋
Public domain status
[編輯]
@Juxlos and Crisco 1492: Since the source of this image [1] has a copyright notice, I wonder if this image falls under the "except if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published" exception of PD-IDGov and is not really public domain? HaEr48 (留言) 19:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- @HaEr48: The exception applies if there’s a copyright statement on the work itself i.e. the photograph. The copyright notice is on the website, which implies that the website is copyrighted. I can’t see any watermarks on the original image however. Juxlos (留言) 23:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've always read "at the time the work is published" to include copyright statements on the website itself, and per the precautionary principle I have avoided uploading images from government websites that have copyright notices. The 2014 copyright law, in its original, reads "... ketika terhadap Ciptaan tersebut dilakukan Pengumuman, Pendistribusian, Komunikasi, dan/atau Penggandaan;" (... when the Work is first Published, Distributed, Communicated, and/or Reproduced"), which seems to support my interpretation. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492: I would interpret the copyright sign as “website (HTML, CSS, design) copyrighted by the presidential office”, as there are no indicators of the media files themselves being included in that statement. Plus, the copyright mark was dated 2017 which was clearly before this image - so that almost certainly refers to the website (probably a redesign), not its contents. Juxlos (留言) 02:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- So my interpretation is:
- baik dengan peraturan perundang-undangan
obviously
- maupun dengan pernyataan pada Ciptaan itu sendiri nothing on the image or even in the text of the article
- ketika Ciptaan itu diumumkan dan/atau diperbanyak; since this was published on July 2018, and the copyright tag on the website indicates “2017”, and hence cannot have referred to this.
What would be violating copyright would be if one was to, say, take a screenshot of the presidenri.go.id website and upload it on Commons. Juxlos (留言) 02:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Juxlos, the problem is that, in the 2014 law there is a comma before "ketika", implying that this is a third clause, and as such any form of copyright statement at the time of publication etc. is sufficient for a government work to be copyrighted. There is not an explicit requirement for the year in the copyright notice to match the year of publication; the explication doesn't include such a requirement either. As phrased (... kecuali dinyatakan dilindungi ... ketika terhadap Ciptaan tersebut dilakukan Pengumuman, Pendistribusian, Komunikasi, dan/atau Penggandaan;), it is sufficient that a copyright notice be in effect at the time of publication. In other words, a notice dated 2017, so long as it was still there when the work was published, would be sufficient. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492: the full quote is: “Pengumuman, Pendistribusian, Komunikasi, dan/atau Penggandaan segala sesuatu yang dilaksanakan oleh atau atas nama pemerintah, kecuali dinyatakan dilindungi oleh peraturan perundang-undangan, pernyataan pada Ciptaan tersebut, atau ketika terhadap Ciptaan tersebut dilakukan Pengumuman, Pendistribusian, Komunikasi, dan/atau Penggandaan;”. Clauses 1 and 2 obviously clear, and I really don’t see the relation between an ambiguous copyright notice at the bottom of the site with the photograph in particular. If there had been a tag in the article or caption regarding it, then yes, it would be. Juxlos (留言) 06:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- and the statement itself is “PresidenRI.go.id © 2017. Hak Cipta Dilindungi.” implies to me that the website, and not the pictures and articles, are covered by the statement. If it had been “PresidenRI.go.id and all media © 2017 instead, then yes. Juxlos (留言) 06:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Juxlos, the paragraph specifies three possibilities. It is using a construct where the article in possibility one applies to possibility two, with "ketika" replacing the "oleh" in possibility three. There's really no doubt that "kecuali dinyatakan dilindungi ... ketika terhadap Ciptaan tersebut dilakukan Pengumuman, Pendistribusian, Komunikasi, dan/atau Penggandaan" is the intended reading of that third possibility. Had they wanted to specify that inclusion of the copyright notice in/on a work needed to be done at first publication, they would not have used a comma or "atau" where they did.
- Copyright disclaimers in books and other compilations of media tend to apply to everything included within. Kompas and Tempo, for example, do not need to provide a copyright disclaimer on every individual image or element of the website because they are included in a general copyright claim. And before you get hung up on the disclaimer only mentioning "PresidenRI.go.id", note that in the source code the media is included. It is hosted by the website and included in its code. It is part of the website. I'm nominating for deletion when it comes unprotected. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Juxlos, the problem is that, in the 2014 law there is a comma before "ketika", implying that this is a third clause, and as such any form of copyright statement at the time of publication etc. is sufficient for a government work to be copyrighted. There is not an explicit requirement for the year in the copyright notice to match the year of publication; the explication doesn't include such a requirement either. As phrased (... kecuali dinyatakan dilindungi ... ketika terhadap Ciptaan tersebut dilakukan Pengumuman, Pendistribusian, Komunikasi, dan/atau Penggandaan;), it is sufficient that a copyright notice be in effect at the time of publication. In other words, a notice dated 2017, so long as it was still there when the work was published, would be sufficient. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
