Template talk:PD-IDGov

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

UNESCO has a translation of the law quoted in this template which may be useful for comparison and clarification. —xyzzyn 19:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I've reworded it. Indon 15:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Indonesian[edit]

Problematic clause "publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the government, except if the copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published;" might get more than 2.000 files get deleted from Commons because it was taken from government websites, and almost all government websites put © mark on their footer.

Discuss it at Commons:Village_pump#All_Indonesian_government_pictures_are_copyvio permalink. Bennylin (yes?) 23:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Outdated[edit]

I have been notified on w:Talk:Joko Widodo that the law referred to in this template, may be outdated. While I can confirm that there is an identically named law from 2014 (Undang-undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 28 Tahun 2014 Tentang Hak Cipta), my knowledge of Indonesian is too insufficient to read complex juridical texts. Therefore I do not know to what extent things have changed for governmental pictures. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright law of 2014[edit]

I think I have found the © exceptions that are related to this template: Article 43 (Pasal 43) in the link provided in my post above. In Indonesian, it says:

Perbuatan yang tidak dianggap sebagai pelanggaran Hak Cipta meliputi:

  1. Pengumuman, Pendistribusian, Komunikasi, dan/atau Penggandaan lambang negara dan lagu kebangsaan menurut sifatnya yang asli;
  2. Pengumuman, Pendistribusian, Komunikasi, dan/atau Penggandaan segala sesuatu yang dilaksanakan oleh atau atas nama pemerintah, kecuali dinyatakan dilindungi oleh peraturan perundang-undangan, penyataan pada Ciptaan tersebut, atau ketika terhadap Ciptaan tersebut dilakukan Pengumuman, Pendistribusian, Komunikasi, dan/atau Penggandaan;
  3. pengambilan berita aktual, baik seluruhnya maupun sebagian dari kantor berita, Lembaga Penyiaran, dan surat kabar atau sumber sejenis lainnya dengan ketentuan sumbernya harus disebutkan secara lengkap; atau
  4. pembuatan dan penyebarluasan konten Hak Cipta melalui media teknologi informasi dan komunikasi yang bersifat tidak komersial dan/atau menguntungkan Pencipta atau pihak terkait, atau Pencipta tersebut menyatakan tidak keberatan atas pembuatan dan penyebarluasan tersebut.
  5. Penggandaan, Pengumuman, dan/atau Pendistribusian Potret Presiden, Wakil Presiden, mantan Presiden, mantan Wakil Presiden, Pahlawan Nasional, pimpinan lembaga negara, pimpinan kementerian/lembaga pemerintah non kementerian, dan/atau kepala daerah dengan memperhatikan martabat dan kewajaran sesuai dengan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan.

Most notably, the final point speaks about how governmental portraits are exempt from the copyright law. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You can download the new law here. Can someone update the template? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
It does not say that they are exempt from copyright law -- this is apparently like most FOP laws -- the work is copyrighted, but using it for certain purposes is not infringement.
5) Duplication, Announcement, and / or Distribution of a Portrait of the President, Vice President, former President, former Vice President, National Hero, head of state institution, head of ministry / non-ministerial government institution and / or head of region with due regard to dignity and fairness legislation.
translator: Google
That says nothing about commercial use or derivative works, so I am inclined to believe that we cannot use it to keep images that we could not keep without it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
If duplication is not allowed, and not restricted to non-commercial, that generally means that commercial use is allowed as well. The law would have to explicitly state it was restricted to non-commercial uses. Derivative works... unsure. That would depend on the meaning of the word translated as "duplication" there. Derivative works by nature do reproduce some of the original expression, but it's possible that phrase is basically allowing strict duplication but not derivative works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I emailed the government office in Indonesia which handles copyright about this, I hope they would answer my email. Poyekhali 04:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
UPDATE: It seems the copyright office doesn't accept any Gmail emails. So we can't get any clarification from the Indonesian Copyright Office. Poyekhali 00:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@Poyekhali: The irony is: they are using a Gmail account themselves, if it is indeed the DJKI that we are talking about. --HyperGaruda (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The problem here is that the license has to allow derivative works that are parodies or other political statements that put the subject in a bad light. Governments rarely want to allow that, so they usually restrict derivative works. "with due regard to dignity and fairness" speaks directly to this issue and prevents use in parody or negative political comment. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: From what I see from Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Indonesia derivative works allowed from the definition of "reproduction" ("perbanyakan"). At the current law it use different but similar word "duplication" ("penggandaan") that have the same definition. Hddty. (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
That may be, but, as I said above, the words translated as "with due regard to dignity and fairness" prevent use of an image in parody or political attack ads and, therefore, prevent use on Commons. Commons images must be free for any use whatsoever without any regard for dignity or fairness. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Hddty., Jameslwoodward: I am in doubt as to which side is right. On one hand, we've got Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, including this moral rights clause and which "are not grounds for deletion of works from Commons". On the other "with due regard to dignity and fairness" restricts the freedom of use required by the definition of free content. Additionally, 43.5 does not explicitly mention commercial use and derivatives (=heavily modifying the original, not just plain copying) of these government portraits, where I have always assumed that copyright is restrictive unless explicitly mentioned otherwise. In this respect, I am leaning towards "not permissible on Commons", but they may be still allowed on some local Wikipedias as fair use. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)