Template talk:PD-Italy

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


Testo del template in italiano:

Questa immagine è stata creata in Italia ed è ora di pubblico dominio perché il suo copyright è scaduto. Secondo la Legge 22 aprile 1941 n. 633, innovata dalla legge 22 maggio 2004, n. 128 articolo 87 e articolo 92, le foto generiche e prive di carattere artistico, divengono di pubblico dominio a partire dall'inizio dell'anno solare seguente al compimento del ventesimo anno dalla data di pubblicazione. Le fotografie considerate opere d'arte diventano di pubblico domino dopo 70 anni. La norma vale in tutto il mondo.

Traslation of law[edit]

There is an English translation of the 2003 Italian copyright law available online at www.unesco.org. Thuresson 21:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 87
The images of persons, or of aspects, elements or events of natural
or social life, obtained by photographic or analogous processes,
including reproductions of works of figurative art and stills of
cinematographic film, shall be considered photographs for the
purposes of this Chapter.

This provision shall not apply to photographs of writings, documents,
business papers, material objects, technical drawings and similar
Paragraph 92
The exclusive right in respect of photographs shall subsist for 20 years
from the making of the photograph.

Italian Law[edit]

La legge considera fotografie le immagini di persone o di aspetti, elementi o fatti della vita naturale e sociale, ottenute col processo fotografico o con processo analogo, comprese le riproduzioni di opere dell'arte figurativa e i fotogrammi delle pellicole cinematografiche. Non sono comprese le fotografie di scritti, documenti, carte di affari, oggetti materiali, disegni tecnici e prodotti simili (che quindi non godono di tale protezione).

Completely misleading[edit]

Most Italian photographs are protected 70 years after the dead of the creator. See the EU directive of 1993 --Historiograf 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The above selective reading of the Italian law is completely misleading. I must admit that I do not quite understand this Italian law, because the §§87 and 92 cited above are listed under "neighbouring rights". I gather the following:
  • "Copyright" in Italy comprises "Exploitative rights" (Economic rights) and "Moral rights". (Nothing unusual so far.) The exploitative rights are defined in §§12 – 18bis: right to publish (§12), to reproduce (§13), to transcribe (§14), to perform (§15), to broadcast (§16), to distribute & to market (§17), to translate & to make derivatives of (§18), to rent or lend (§18bis) the work.
  • §32bis clearly and unambiguously states that "The exploitation rights in [a] photographic work shall lapse at the end of the 70th year following the author’s death."
  • I don't know how this Chapter V of "Part II: Neighbouring rights" (those ominous §§87 to 92) fits into all this, but I get the impression that this applies only to documentary or reproductive photography. These paragraphs say that the photographer (or his employer, if a work-for-hire) has a 20year exclusive right to reproduce, disseminate, and market the photo, irrespective of any copyrights on the depicted things. I do not understand what these paragraphs shall accomplish, §32bis already gives photographers these rights for a much longer period. In any case, even if we assume that thus after 20 years some rights are extinguished, the other rights not mentioned remain. Especially §18 is damning in this context: no matter what the Italian legislators intended, the right to make derivative works remains with the photographer for a period until 70 years after his death.
Therefore, §§87 to 92 do not mean that an Italian photograph was in the "public domain" after only 20 years, not even in Italy. One still cannot freely make derivative works. Italian photographs are copyrighted until 70 years p.m.a. Anything else would be a violation of the EU Copyright Directive anyway. Lupo 10:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The whole thing is similar with the German distinction between a simple Lichtbild and a Lichbildwerk. §2(7) of the Italian law makes the similar distinction between "photographic works" (protected according to §32, 70 years p.m.a) and "simple photographs" (§§87 - 92). Remains the question of what exactly is a "simple photograph", and what their status would be outside Italy. Note that the U.S. does not have that distinction, and in Germany is is applied very restrictively. Thus even if some "generic" images (as someone wrote in Italian above) are protected only for 20 years in Italy, they are most probably protected much longer (70 years p.m.a) elsewhere. Lupo 10:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (P.S.: some links in Italian that show that it is indeed a question of "simple photograph" (purely documentary) and "photographic work" (creativity of the photographer): [1], [2], [3], and [4] (mentioning that the distinction is unclear and extremely difficult to make) Lupo)
Final comment (for now): "La norma vale in tutto il mondo" ("This is valid world-wide") is completely wrong. Italian law is binding only in Italy, nowhere else. Lupo 10:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This continual ranting about EU harmonization is nonsense. The authority cited by this template is Italian law, not EU directives. What matters is what the Italian law says. Very clearly this statute enumerates 10 different kinds of works, and says under article 29 for example:
"The duration of the exploitation rights belonging, under art. 11, to the State, the provinces, the communes, the academies or public cultural organizations, or to private legal entities of a non-profit making character, shall be twenty years from first publication, whatever the form in which publication was effected."
Yet the EU harmonization directive states 70 years after the death of the author. So how can we make any sense of article 29? How can the duration of any work be 20 years? All works have an author, so they very clearly contradict each other. The question is then- which one is correct. Under Italian law- copyright to state works expire after 20 years. Period.
So what is this other thing- this thing coming out of Brussels? The EU directive is I am afraid, just a directive and not a law until the EU gets around to agreeing on a constitution. If folks want to make the case that Italian law is wrong, then fine, the venue is either Brussels or Luxembourg and the European Court of Justice, not a talk page on the internet. Once there is a ruling, then there is something to talk about. Until then, the law on the books says that 70 years from the death of the author is not the limit in all cases in Italy. -Mak 20:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
What matters is Italian legislation and not a single Italian law. The EU directive has been implemented in Italy in 2003 (Text of the decree here), no matter if is written in the very paragraphs of the specific law the tag happens to refer to.
Beyond that, what matters for the Commons is that images can be freely used not only in Italy. So effectively what's crucial is the legal situation in the rest of the world or at least the EU. --Wikipeder 09:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC) (link to decree added Wikipeder 10:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC))
I encourage folks to look at WIkipeder's link. He is blowing smoke. Look at the legislation number and date. Legislative Decree No. 68, of April 9, 2003. Look at the header for the Unesco translation on Italian Copyright law. Unesco translation of 2003 version of the statute) Sound familiar? It should, because it is precisely the copyright legislation including the ammendments from Legislative Decree No. 68, of April 9, 2003. So Wikipeder is refering to some other relevant legislation that overides Italian copyright law, but all he points to is the same copyright law. He is just going around in circles and return to the same Copyright statute. Only problem is, he didn't know that because he didn't bother to check his facts.
Actually not. You just follow your habit of not following your own argumentation. You claimed the directive was not law, I supplied a link showing that it is.--Wikipeder 10:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Everyone makes errors and we can let that slip by. However, it is not permissible to let this highly controversial assertion pass that is not based on law or caselaw.
What the EU directive wand wavers are saying is nothing less than we should junk all the PD templates for all european countries. In their mind we should only reference the EUCD- a document that has NO legal force, as pointed out in the wiki article on the subject. What they are saying is as radical as it is silly. We should only refer to laws. If they can't back up their statements by refering to law, their argument has no weight here.-Mak 21:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The directive is law in all the EEA states and the US, because it has been implemented there. No use staring at single paragraphs of single laws in single countries. Have a look at en:Wikipedia:Public domain.
And yes, we need to throw out all the PD tags and images of EEA countries that are incompatible with the EU directive (as implemented in the national law of the EEA countries and the US, to use the long and correct expression).
You prefer to generously ignore the central argument that, no matter what the situation in Italy, these images should not be kept on the Commons, since they are copyright protected virtually anywhere else.--Wikipeder 10:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You never made that a central argument, but only offered it when your central argument crumbled. I have answered this wild locality assertion of yours. Perhaps you no longer recall what we are discussing. We are discussing whether the Italian state and other entities are entitled to own copyright on works they produced, and then relinquish those rights after 20 years. Individuals and companies can assume copyright ownership rights, but somehow you think the EUCD prevents the state from owning and then releasing those rights. We are not discussing a situation where for example in Canada you can use an image that the Canadian government never owned but a person can legally use (only in Canada) because they only recognized 50 year copyright while everywhere else it might be 70 years. There is a good reason such Canadian images should not be on commona, but you have not shown how this situation has any relevance to the Italian government rights over images they produced.
Finally on the EUCD. You dance around the subject, because I think you know the truth. The EU directive is not Law. The local laws in the local countries is law. The EU directive has no force of law, so your particular interpretation is totally irrelevant, and speculative, and has no weight here. I see points in the EU directive supporting why Italy feels the state and other entities are entitled to retain copyright under the EUCD, but really that sort of discussion is irrelevant because it isn't law'. Further, it is a highly radical and controversial statement to suggest that we ought to ignore laws? passed by sovereign states, and instead follow directives which have no legal force. You continue to refuse to cite law supporting your argument. When you do, I am prepared to be convinced. You simply have given me no reason to do so. -Mak 15:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You've got some strange perception of what the debate is on: It's if the present text of the template is misleading, and, in extension, if we can have this template on the Commons and if we can have images tagged following its rationale here. As for the central argument, see the first line in this section.
We are getting nowhere like this. You flatly claim the experts were wrong, you absurdly refuse to recognise that the EU directive is law in all EEA states and the US. --Wikipeder 10:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me? A directive is a law? I have pointed you to the article on EU directives. Read it. (EU directives) "can be distinguished from European Union regulations which are self-executing and do not require any implementing measures." Not self-executing. What part of that don't you understand? You are treating the EUCD as if it is law, and the idea that it has legal force is highly controversial, as noted in the article. Until a directive is implemented in the laws of local countries, they are not law. Plain and simple. Perhaps you can support your assertion that directives are laws? What the article says is that they are not laws until a constitution is approved- which may or may not happen even in this decade.

"If the European Constitution is ratified and enters into force, directives will become known simply as European framework laws."

Today? The EUCD is not a law, so stop treating it like one. -Mak 21:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Italian law states that protection of non-artistic photographs lasts for 20 years - see the articles cited above.

EUCD says (Article 5.2a):

"Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the reproduction right provided for in Article 2 in the following cases: (a) in respect of reproductions on paper or any similar medium, effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects"

Convention of Berne says (Article 7-4):

"It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the term of protection of photographic works and that of works of applied art in so far as they are protected as artistic works; however, this term shall last at least until the end of a period of twenty-five years from the making of such a work."

There is the point of the minimum of 25 years that may be stricter than Italian law - still 25 is not 70 p.m.a.

TRIPs says (Article 12):

"Whenever the term of protection of a work, other than a photographic work or a work of applied art, is calculated on a basis other than the life of a natural person, such term shall be no less than 50 years from the end of the calendar year of authorized publication, or, failing such authorized publication within 50 years from the making of the work, 50 years from the end of the calendar year of making."

The only relevant thing I can read is that photographs have a special treatment - I can't find any minimum protection.

So far, I can't find any evidence that photographs that are PD in Italy are not PD elsewhere. Maybe I'm missing out something. --Cruccone 23:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Not that I care to post any PD-Italy image on Commons; but I would like to put an example. There’s a given photo that satisfies the requirements in order to be considered PD in Italy (both produced in Italy and published i.e. in 1981). I publish such photo on it.wiki. Ok, I am not infringing anyone’s rights because Italian Law states clearly that is a matter of Public Domain. Wiki Commons’ policies tend to discourage the use of such photos. Ok, though I don’t understand whose rights are infringed in this case. NOW, it.wiki is viewable even by those users who live in countries where PD Italian Law doesn’t apply (Is the Internet, baby). So what shall Wiki do? No matter whether you avoid those pics to be uploaded on Commons, they will be seen freely all around the world. Blackcat it 10:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Artistic vs. Non-Artistic[edit]

I have edited the template trying to state the law clearlier. Paulatz 09:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Closing statement is false.[edit]

This statement is false:Photographic works enter in the public domain after 70 years since author's death.

The above cited law states in articles 11 and article 88 that the author has no control over copyrights if it is a contracted or if it is a work of the State and various other organizations. I propose that those qualifications be introduced. I propose:

"Many photographic works enter in the public domain 70 years after author's death. Exceptions are works created in the name of the Italian national or local government and various other public organizations and for works which are contracted and the photographer has not legally retained copyright. "-Mak 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement you are suggesting would be wrong: The duration of copyright in photographic works is not pinned to the copyright holder, but to the author. The copyright the state or another organisation is holding will expire 70 years after the author's death (see Art. 32). --Wikipeder 09:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Absurd. Article 11 says the state has the rights, not the author. Article 29 says the state's exploitation rights expire after 20 years. Article 32 does not give those rights to the author so if your reading is correct, there are exploitation rights for an additional 50 years that no one- not the state, not the author, not the public can exercise. It is a nonsensical position you are taking. Yet you refuse to explain yourself, and the reason for this is quite simple. You are wrong. -Mak 23:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
A suggestion: Read the law with the knowledge that it can't contradict the EU directive on copyright harmonisation, i. e. that copyright expires 70 years p. m. a. or, with anonymous works, 70 years after publication. Pay attention to the meaning of "spettare" and the fact that the Italian concept of copyright differs considerably from the US'.--Wikipeder 10:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd be very pleased to understand how the law can be read the way. Please cite the passages in the Italian law that support what you are saying. So far you have come up with a single passage (article 32), that if we are to believe your reading, there will be works with exploitation rights that no one can exercise- not the state, public or photographer- for 50 years. A nonsensical position.
It is my intention to change the template to reflect this dispute. I have proposed text above. If you care to propose an alternative, please do. It's more sensible to come to a compromise rather than wearisome edit conflicts that are a huge burden on the server because this is a template affecting many pages.-Mak 16:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't want any edit war either. Let's leave the debate on the EU directive aside for the specific issue of amending the template text.
PD-Italy now is a tag for simple photographs. Copyright of these class of images is ruled by a completely different set of laws and following a very different rationale than of photographic works described in Art. 11. They should be kept apart.
Secondly, the closing statement is intended as a warning not to rashly tag each and any Italian image with this template. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of photos created in Italy certainly do not qualify as simple photographs or works as mentioned in Art. 11.
--Wikipeder 10:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
That intention is sensible and I completely agree we need a strong statement, since by the title it is very easy to misuse and misunderstand this tag as you point out. However the statement as it stands is disputed. If we note the dispute as done on PD-Soviet, there is no longer a strong statement, and that would be very bad. Other strong statements could be made without such qualification. Do you have any suggestions? -Mak

Since there has been no alternative wordings for two weeks, I shall substitute the wording I proposed in two days. Please, to avoid multiple edits to this template affecting many pages, let's make sure we have reached the best compromise before the change is made. -Mak 16:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mak, I thought you are away for a wedding or something ...
To keep the issues apart and to keep the text as a warning not to wildly tag any Italian image, I'd suggest to use this sentence:
Most photographies enter the public domain 70 years after author's death.
I'll wait for two days, let me know what you think. --Wikipeder 19:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Needs a lot of work. It would have been helpful if we could have hashed this out prior to me changing the template. Issues:
  • I thought we wanted a strong statement. If you are not specific, the person is allowed weasel room. By wording it "Most", the person can allow themselves to think- well- I am sure this must be one of those that are in the other-than-Most category. If you mention the restrictions of those outside of the "Most" category, then you disallow them that sort of magical thinking. Certainly, conciseness dictates you can't go into great length, so I decided on making a link to the other Italy template. What is the harm in doing that?
  • This template has been tranformed into the "non artistic Italian photographs" template. Clearly the title PD-Italy leads the user to believe that this very narrow case is the only set of PD works that are permissible when in fact there is a huge body of works non limitted to photographs created in the public sector whose copyrights expired after just 20 years. So either we rename this template to PD-Italy-nonArtistic-Photos or we make a reference to PD-ItalyGov.
Your thoughts? -Mak 23:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Renaming PD-Italy is a good idea. What about PD-Italy-simple in analogy to "simple photograph" as opposed to "photographic work"?
The closing statement: The trouble is that the tag cannot be specific to begin with. The line is terribly fuzzy between simple photographs and photographic works. I think the tag should be removed, because classification will be arbitrary, so we will end up with stealth non-free content. Outside Italy these images will be copyright protected anyway.
But pragmatically, as long as the tag is around: The task of the closing statement cannot really be more than an appeal to the user to think twice: If he's looking for weasel room, he'll find heaps of it in the artistic or non-artistic nature of the image anyway. So Most photos enter the public domain 70 years after the author's death seems quite okay as a warning to think twice. What other exceptions to the 70 year pma rule there might be doesn't really matter in this situation.
Generally, I think tags should not link or refer to each other. Tags are for visitors, who do not need the link. Uploaders and editors should do their tagging job properly and choose the appropriate licence from the start, not begin with one and then click on a link on the tag to switch to the proper version.
--Wikipeder 08:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My take on all this:

  1. Do not confuse the EU Copyright Directive (EUCD) of 2001 with the EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection of 1993. The EUCD was more concerned with computer programs and the so-called "neighbouring rights" (sometimes also called "related rights"), i.e. the copyright-like protections for performers, broadcasters, and in particular producers of phonograms. The copyright restoration that appears to be so controversial was the effect of the 1993 directive on harmonizing copyright terms throughout the EU. That restoration became effective on July 1, 1995 in all EU members, as they all had incorporated this binding EU directive into their local laws.
  2. The U.S. URAA became effective on January 1, 1996, i.e. half a year later. That's rather unfortunate for us, because it means that any copyrights restored in the EU under that 1993 directive also became restored in the U.S. under the URAA. Tough luck, but we cannot change that.
  3. The copyright restorations of the 1993 EU directive apply to "photographic works" only. Some EU member countries know a second class of photographs for which shorter copyright terms apply. The rules which kinds of photographs are considered "works" and which are "simple" vary from one country to another, see the survey at User:Lupo/Simple Photographs. In most countries, the distinction is made by applying the threshold of originality, a rather subjective criterion, IMO, as the rules for determining that threshold again vary from country to country. In general, I don't like PD claims based on the argument something wasn't original enough (lacking Schöpfungshöhe, to use the German term), because it opens far and wide the door to abuse and endless discussions. (Yes, I don't like the "lack of Schöpfungshöhe" argument for logos; but logos are a different case anyway. Let's stick to photographs here, OK?) In countries where the threshold of originality is used for distinguishing between works and simple photographs, only works are copyrighted; simple photographs are by default not copyrightable unless the law explicitly specifies a term. I.e. a country that uses the threshold of originality and says "simple photographs are protected for X years since creation" has stronger rules than a country that does not mention simple photographs at all in its law, which is equivalent to using the threshold of originality and not setting an explicit copyright term for photographs failing it.
  4. So, we already have arrived at the undisputed claim: Italian photographic works are copyrighted to 70 years p.m.a. throughout the EU, including Italy itself. If copyrighted on 1996-01-01 in Italy or anywhere in the EU, Italian photographic works are copyrighted also in the U.S. (Photos from 1996 or later are copyrighted anyway.)
  5. Now, we have two disputed categories of Italian photographs: Italian simple photographs {{PD-Italy}}, and Italian government-owned photographs {{PD-ItalyGov}}. Let's consider them separately.
  6. For simple photographs, Italian law is quite generous: any image of persons, elements, facts, or aspects, of daily life is a "simple photograph". Excluded are images of maps, documents, technical designs, etc. (§87) I presume these latter images would thus be "works"? For the others, the photographer (or his employer in the case of works for hire, §88) gets a copyright of 20 years since creation of the photograph (§92), if the photograph bears a copyright notice (§90). That's the rules that apply within Italy.
  7. What's the situation in other countries of such photos that are considered "simple" in Italy? Copyright law works by national treatment, i.e., whether something is copyrighted in a particular country, one has to look at the laws of that country. Let's look at two cases: Germany and the U.S.
    1. Germany applies the threshold of originality, photos failing it are Lichtbilder (simple photographs, as opposed to Lichtbildwerke). A simple photograph is protected for 50 years since publication or creation. The crux is that the threshold of originality is so low in Germany that basically all photographs are works and thus copyrighted until 70 years p.m.a. The categories enumerated in Italian law do not apply in Germany. As a result, an Italian simple photograph created more than 20 years ago is out of copyright in Italy (as a non-work, it isn't subject to the restoration due to the 1993 EU directive), but is still copyrighted in Germany until 70 years after the death of the photographer!
    2. The U.S. does not know the concept of "simple photographs". Either something passes the threshold of originality and is a work and is fully copyrighted, or it doesn't and thus is not copyrightable at all. However, the threshold of originality again is rather low, such that in general, all photographs are copyrightable works. However, foreign works from before the URAA were copyrighted in the U.S. only if registered, and if not, became copyrighted only if still copyrighted in their country of origin. Assuming that Italian simple photographs were not registered in the U.S. (seems likely), my conclusion is that Italian simple photographs created before 1976-01-01 did not fall under the URAA (even if the U.S. might consider them "works") because their "simple photograph" copyright had expired in Italy before the URAA effective date of 1996-01-01 and such Italian simple photographs were not subject to the restoration by virtue of the 1993 EU directive. (As that directive applied only to "works", I don't think it made expired simple photographs copyrighted again in Italy, although it may have made them copyrighted again in other EU countries where they would be "works".)
  8. Government-owned photographs are a slightly different case. Like simple photographs, they may still be copyrighted in other countries, even if their Italian copyright had expired after 20 years. That's also the case with other countries' governments' copyrights. Consider UK Crown Copyright: even when the Crown Copyright expires on a UK government work, it may still be copyrighted elsewhere. However, Wikipedia got a highly official statement from the UK body administering Crown Copyright that they effectively consider Crown Copyright expiry to apply worldwide, notwithstanding the formalities and complexities of international copyright. See {{PD-BritishGov}}. If we could have a similar highly official statement from the Italian Ministry of Justice or whomever is responsible, we could also consider the Italian expiry to apply world-wide. Absent such an official statement, we again must play the same game as above, but with the added complexity that we don't know whether such Italian government photos would be "works" or "simple photographs". Does a photo of a fighting jet qualify as "everyday life"? Might be questionable, IMO. "Works" might, as usual, fall under the 1993 EU directive and thus have their copyright restored. We (at least I) don't know whether such a copyright restoration under the EU directive would top in Italy the "20 years for governmental works" paragraph. That's a question we should ask a real lawyer. Maybe one of you could ask Soufron. If the EU restoration does top the Italian 20-year-rule even in Italy, see point 4 above (copyrighted 70 years p.m.a. in the EU, and also copyrighted in the U.S. in copyrighted in the EU on 1996-01-01). If not, such Italian government photos might be copyrighted in other EU countries, and those created on or after 1976-01-01 would also be copyrighted in the U.S., and within Italy, they'd be out of copyright if created more than 20 years ago.

In conclusion, I think the commons should not apply the "simple photograph" exception from Italian law. It may apply in Italy and (if my analysis is correct) for pre-1976 Italian simple photographs also in the U.S., but in many other countries, such photos would be "works" and thus copyrighted. I also think we should not yet apply the Italian "government-owned" photo exceptions, as we still don't know enough about it. The best would be to get an official statement that the Italian state considers this 20-year copyright expiration to apply world-wide, like the British did. As always, IANAL etc. pp. Thoughts? Lupo 10:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

-Is it your contention is that in Italy, on January 1, 1996, it was not legal for an Italian citizen to use an italian government image that was public domain in 1980s and earlier? Under which law would this be illegal? Not directive. Which law?

You make the unsupported assertion "That restoration became effective on July 1, 1995 in all EU members, as they all had incorporated this binding EU directive into their local laws." Ok. Prove it. Where is the passage in the Italian law that incorporated this?-Mak 17:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh well. Your first point (or question): I didn't say or imply that at all. If you read carefully, I wrote that we didn't know whether the 1993 EU directive tops the Italian §29 for government photos that would be "works". I suggested asking a real lawyer on that one. In any case, I can assure you that other countries are not bound by Italian laws, so even if in Italy copyright on certain works (or rather, the exclusive economic exploitation rights part of copyrights) might expire after 20 years, such works may remain copyrighted in other countries. It's the same with the 50-year UK Crown Copyright.
On your second point, proving that Italy did enact the EU directive 1993/98/EEC (or 1993/98/CE, to use the Italian abbreviation), see [5] and [6], two commentaries on Italian copyright law, both in Italian, confirming this. I would also recommend the book by Marchetti, Piergaetano; Ubertazzi, Luigi Carlo (eds.): Commentario breve al diritto della concorrenza, 3rd ed., Cedam, Padova, 2004, ISBN 8-813-19857-4. The second link is particularly interesting, as they quote that commentary, which apparently states that according to the commenters' opinion, the Italian state did not consider the interactions between the EU directive 93/98/CE and the law fully, and that §29 conflicts actually with the directive. Also see the footnote on §25.1.a in that commentary for confirmation that Italy did implement the directive. (Before the directive, Italy had a general copyright term of 50 years, plus some WWII-wartime extensions, IIRC.) In other words, the fact that §25 provides for a general copyright term of 70 years p.m.a. is another confirmation that Italy did implement the EU directive 93/98/CE. It would be interesting to know what the Marchetti/Ubertazzi commentary says on simple photographs. Lupo 19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: there's a whole set of professional publications on copyright law in Italy at http://www.gsavvocati.it/pubblicazioni.php Looks very good. When I have more time, I'll check what exactly they say on photographs, and on photographic works vs. simple photographs. Lupo 19:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Law. Not commentary. Surprisingly the very commentary you cite points out that the works of the state are an exception to the 70 year rule and expire after 20 years. Thanks for the assistance on destroying your own argument"

"In particolare, l’art. 25 prevede la regola generale secondo la quale i diritti di utilizzazione economica dell’opera durano tutta la vita dell’autore e sino al termine del settantesimo anno dopo la morte. Tale regola ricomprende anche categorie di creazioni- quali le opere cinematografiche e fotografiche – che in passato godevano di una protezione più breve.
Una deroga del termine di protezione è prevista solo per alcune, e specifiche, fattispecie (si tratta di opere con soggettività speciale, quali opere anonime o pseudonime e opere collettive, ecc per le quali la deroga alla durata della protezione non riguarda il termine bensì il momento dal quale tale protezione decorre; opere create e pubblicate sotto il nome ed a conto e spese delle Amministrazioni e degli enti territoriali dello Stato, per le quali la deroga concerne la durata, prevista in 20 anni;"

Ok, you can hand wave that the Italians didn't understand the EU directive. You hand wave that other countries might have copyrighted the works. It doesn't matter. What matters is the law on the books in the country of origin on January 1, 1996, since that is what US code says to look at. No one including you has pointed to any Italian law that says these Government works are not PD. I have cited the passages that clearly show they are. On January 1, 1996, these images were PD in their country of origin, so under US copyright Law- Title17, 104A h6b, they are PD in the US.

Your position is untenable unless you can show the Italian law on the books on January 1,1996 that these governmental works were not PD.

I have cited law. You have declined to. Worse, you yourself have attempted to support your argument with documents that crush your position. If I am incorrect as you seem to think, you have not been helpful in explaining why we should believe the way you do. -Mak 21:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mak, what you strangely think has been crushed by the commentary quoted has not been claimed by Lupo.
The argument against PD-Italy is that these images will be copyright protected at least outside Italy, so we can't really use them.
The argument against PD-ItalyGov is that we do not know enough about state/academy/NP0-commissioned images yet and that state-created images and particularly images merely paid by NPOs etc. will be copyrighted outside Italy all the same, so we can't use them either.
--Wikipeder 23:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Lupo quoted the commentary as supporting the proof I requested that these works were not PD under italian law as of January 1, 1996. It clearly showed the opposite.
Actually, Lupo didn't claim that but said we all don't really know. He pointed to the commentary as a reference that the EU directive has been implemented in Italy.
Once again Wikipeder, since they were PD in the country of origin, they were PD in the US. Under US law (US copyright Law- Title17, 104A h6b), these are PD in the US too. And that's were the Wiki servers are. Commons:Licensing affirms the same statement. OK. Maybe other countries have copyrighted the images. US law recognizes the status in the country of origin. You are right that in other countries the works may not be PD. It doesn't matter. If you wish, I would be happy to add the template text that the work is PD "in the US and possibly elsewhere". Is this satisfactory, or do you have a problem with PD-US because such works are not PD in all countries?
Admittedly, I would not be happy with images on the Commons that could only be used in Italy or the US, but that's not the problem here. I'm just absolutely far away from being convinced that the 20 years rule as you understand it applies in Italy, let alone in the US.
I am not sure what you think is to be gained by continually being evasive about addressing this chain of logic. It is also baffling why you think introducing a discussion of non governmental entities is germaine. Last I checked, the PD-ItalyGov Template was about government works. It doesn't matter what knots you want to tie about non governmental entities. They are irrelevant to this discussion. -Mak 00:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
That seems to be a misunderstanding. For one thing, I thought you intended to apply all photo exceptions of Art. 11, of the state as well as of academies and private non-profit and cultural organisations. You don't?
On the other hand, to me the inclusion into the law of works simply financed by these non-state entities is a strong clue that these images do not enter the public domain 20 years after publication but that simply the exploitation rights return to the author, as is the case with letters.
See, there are lots of references that the state's (etc.) exclusive rights last for 20 years. However, except in your interpretation and a single informal email exchange, I've found no trace that these works would then enter the public domain. It would contradict the EU directive, which nobody would have noticed. The Italian WP does not mention it, neiter does dirittoautore.it. The state-created LUCE image over which the debate started is copyrighted to Corbis, who charge up to several tenthousand Dollars for a commercial licence of the photo. For an image that has been PD for half a century?
I think this is more than enough to not be convinced of PD-ItalyGov. It might be just a great misunderstanding—at way too high risks for the project and the users.
--Wikipeder 02:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Well this is progress I suppose, though I cannot understand how you came to the conclusion I was discussing non governmental entities. The template is named ItalyGov, I have only been talking about government rights. Again you evade discussion of law and base your conclusion on anecdotal evidence and fuzzy inferences. Our templates make reference to law, not how many other sites also state an image is PD. It would be the height of irresponsibility for Commons to conclude that they are legitimate PD items that way, but hey if you want to be convinced that way, fine. It is nothing to base on argument on. But if you are struggling for some reason to take this seriously, I presume you take CreativeCommons seriously. Take a look at the frequently asked questions on the creativecommons.it:
"Quanto durano i diritti di utilizzazione economica?
  • ...
  • Amministrazioni dello Stato: 20 anni dalla prima pubblicazione." [7]
Ok, so you and Lupo think the Italian lawmakers are mistaken, and Creative commons is mistaken. Fine- very bold of you. Write a letter to them. Be sure to to cite law though, and not how many websites seem to support your version of reality versus theirs.
You state the Italian WP does not mention this fact. Please, don't make stuff up. Did you even bother to look at the article on copyright? Ok. Here's the link: it:Diritto_d'autore#Diritti_di_utilizzazione_economica. "Delle opere pubblicate da amministrazioni dello Stato, fra le quali sono comprese accademie, ed enti pubblici culturali, ed alle quali sono assimilati gli enti privati senza fini di lucro, va notato che il diritto decade dopo venti anni." If you don't understand enough Italian, have someone translate for you. Works of the state. Twenty years, and they expire. I don't know why you couldn't find this. I told you and Histrograf on your talk page that these facts were in the Italian WP, and gave you the italian search expressions so you could verify for yourself.
So even your patchwork of inferential thinking is perposterous.
When you have some law to back up your argument, I will eagerly read your post. -Mak
Mak, please assume good faith. Maybe you could take a look again at my points 7.2 and 8 above. All I did was pointing out that according to [8], the Marchetti/Ubertazzi commentary points out that §29 is a gray area in Italian law as it conflicts with the EU directive 93/98/CE. (For government photos that are "works", that is.) They write "È peraltro opinione diffusa che il legislatore italiano non abbia ancora adempiuto a tutti gli obblighi imposti dalla direttiva e che segnatamente gli artt. 26 co. 2, 28 e 29 l.a. presentino ancora diversi profili di contrasto con la legislazione comunitaria. Sul punto v. pià diffusamente il commento alle rispettive norme." (Rough quick'n'dirty translation: "There is, however, the opinion that the Italian legislator did not fully consider the obligations implied by the directive [93/98/CE] and that in particular articles 26(2), 28, and 29 still have conflict potential with the community [EU] legislation. On this point, see the commentary on the respective articles.") But anyway; this is a fine point that would have an effect within Italy (and, for pre-1976 government works, also on the copyright in the U.S.) Works, whether governmental or not, are covered by the EU directive 93/98/CE, and are copyrighted in the other EU countries. I repeat my suggestion: ask a real lawyer about the interactions of 93/98/CE and §29, especially for governmental photos that are "works". Let's clear this up properly before using yet another template based on guesswork and personal interpretation.
For "simple photographs", the distinction from "photographic works" is the threshold of originality according to [9]. Traditionally, this threshold is rather high in Italy, but the criteria are subjective and unclear, IMO. Perspective and framing contribute to the necessary creativity, but alone are not sufficient. Choice of lighting and shadows are a factor. They write: "È controverso quale sia il livello minimo di creatività richiesto perché le fotografie possano accedere alla tutela d’autore. E così mentre parte della dottrina e della giurisprudenza optano per un gradiente particolarmente elevato, un diverso orientamento suggerisce di adottare la soluzione opposta, in quanto più coerente con la tendenza generale che vede i requisiti di tutela delle opere dell’ingegno attestarsi progressivamente verso livelli sempre più bassi." ("The minimum level of creativity required to make a photograph copyrightable as a work is controversial. While the legal practice has so far used a particularly high level, various guidelines suggest the opposite, in accordance with the general tendency of continually lowering the requirements for copyrightability.") The technical quality of a photograph or the presence of errors are not relevant. The subject itself isn't either, only the way it is reproduced by the photograph. Therefore, even photographs of objects of everday life may be copyrightable! As already said, the Italian legislative practice uses a high level, but—as always with threshold of originality arguments—there are no clear guidelines. Examples of factors that may make a photo a copyrightable photographic work are: choice of lighting; the play of light and shadow; choices of framing or perspective to show e.g. a building in a breathtaking way or in fact any object in a way that transcends the plain reality; artistic composition; in a portrait for instance the choice of particularly emphasizing the eyes by a choice of framing (in the concrete case, only showing part of the face), or if the work evokes emotions in the viewer beyond that of a "normal" portrait, transfiguring those of the photographer, etc.
Frankly said, I find these examples rather esoteric and open to very subjective interpretation, which is precisely why I don't like PD arguments based on "fails the threshold of originality". Heck, if I were to upload an image based on such an argument, I wouldn't trust myself that I wasn't just deluding myself or that my reasoning would prevail if challenged. I do think that the threshold of originality is too blurry a concept: I don't believe it can be applied sensibly on the commons. In any case, other countries have different thresholds of originality, and since there is no rule of the shorter term within the EU, Italian simple photographs are copyrighted as works in other EU countries where they would be considered works.
Therefore my recommendation: don't use "simple photograph" exceptions; the rules are just too blurry, and get more information of this "Italian governmental photos" (§29) stuff. Lupo 08:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S.: On "simple photographs", also see [10]: "In pratica però è difficile stabilire quando una fotografia presenti un carattere creativo sufficiente per essere tutelata come opera dell'ingegno." ("But in practice, it is difficult to determine whether a given photograph is sufficiently original (or: shows sufficient creativity [of the photographer]) to be copyrightable as a work.") Lupo 08:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Assuming good faith is beside the point. The agenda of people who question the validity of every single PD template on commons could be for very good or very bad reasons. Some people may assume that my assertions are dangerous because they fear that the foundation will be open to lawsuits that would bring about its destruction. The only thing that matters is whether we have convincing arguments based on law.

Now, there are those who have regarded your responses as some sort of proof that PD-ItalyGov is based on a mistaken understanding of copyright law. You dwell on the issue of simple photographs here, not the public domain status of governmental works. Nor do you show that they are linked. I understand you wish to make the argument that the PD-Italy template should be done away with entirely based on the fuzziness of the subjective distinction. It simply has nothing to do with the expiration of Italian government copyright after 20 years. The only reason my arguments concerning PD-ItalyGov are here rather than on Commons:Licensing or the talk page of PD-ItalyGov is that the closing statement of PD-Italy makes a blanket statement regarding 70 year pma which is incorrect if PD-ItalyGov is in fact valid.

I don't know if it was your intention to make any assertions about the validity of PD-ItalyGov because all you have done is make the lukewarm suggestion to "get more information of this "Italian governmental photos" (§29) stuff.", and to 'ask a real lawyer about the interactions of 93/98/CE and §29, especially for governmental photos that are "works"'.

Ok. There is nothing wrong with not having an opinion on the subject (it is a rarity on commons). My general suggestion regarding the tendency to dwelling on EU directives is to consider the fact that the directives are not laws. Folks on commons need to stop treating them as laws. Under the laws as written in Italy and the US, governmental works in Italy prior to 1976 are in the public domain. You are free to speculate how the EU courts might overturn Italian legislation. Maybe you and your favorite commentators are correct that the Italian government is wrong. What we base our judgement not on how law and caselaw might evolve in the future, but what is on the books today. If there is a new ruling on this, we have clearly organized which works are affected and can speedy delete them.
How does that sound to you? -Mak 15:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We should first make sure we properly understand what we are doing and only then apply a new exception. If in doubt, we must assume an image is copyrighted, to protect the Wikimedia projects, the users and the holders of the rights.
What's wrong with clarifying the status of state-created works first, and not offer and use PD-ItalyGov for now?
I suppose your answer is that you do not have any doubts and that in your view everything is clarified already. Well, true, but this is a collective project. --Wikipeder 16:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Kindly restore the discussion to the orginal form. Your addition of a section on "Lupo Analaysis" vs. Debate following his analysis, sets up Lupo as some kind of authority. Not withstanding our respect for his more methodical presentation of information and your favor of his point of view, he has no special authority here other than that which derives from the strength of his arguments.
The Italian government is certain on the point, Creative Commons is certain on the point, it:WP's article is certain on the point but you are uncertain. That is fine. PD-ItalyGov will undergo a review for deletion, and if DennisS had not submitted it, I would have because then we will have certainty on this issue for the time being. If it survives the deletion request, the 70 year pma text of this template will have to be softened one way or another. -Mak 17:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipeder, editing records of talk streams, especially for contentious issues is a highly questionable practice. Since you refused to restore the dialog to the form it took prior to your "improvements", I did.

I suggest we continue dialog on this subject at Template talk:PD-ItalyGov rather than here, or the deletion page, per Fred's suggestion. -Mak 20:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Allright, if you feel that strongly about it. The idea was to avoid browser problems for the section getting too long. --Wikipeder 07:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

May I add a point to Lupo's analysis. The EU directive of 1993 has not removed the national 2-sorts-of-photos doctrine but has made the criteria for the works lower. The directive is the reason that Germany and Austria now see nearly all photos as photographic works. Lupo's analysis is misleading if he thinks that German law considers simple photos as works. The reason that this is true is the directive! Before the harmonization in Germany only artistic photos are protected as works. --Historiograf 07:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There should not be point of discussion, I think. If a law, issued by Italian Parliament, states that photos produced by Italian Government and other related State-owned, or Public, Organs like Academies, Universities and such enter in the PD after 20 years, it means that such Organs give up their rights worldwide after 20 years, and no further explanation is needed. It would be the same as I released a photo in the public domain: it's mine, and I release it. Period.
A different matter seems to be someone else's rights about a non-artistic work 20+ years old. In this case the Italian Law states that the copyright holder can't claim any right on such kind of photo after 20 years. The question is: does it apply to Italy only? Note that the 20-years-rule applies only to photos produced and issued in Italy, not elsewhere. So it seems that Italian Law says "About the photos produced and issued on the Italian territory, it's up to me to decide what and when they will be freely reproduced worldwide and according to my criteria". Would be helpful if someone could make the matter clearer - - and yes, often the Italian Laws are too difficult to understand even for an Italian :)
. Blackcat it 11:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Formal correctness[edit]

I'm not interested at all in the political side of the debate which brought Commons to its decisions. I respecfully accept these decisions in the belief that, when in doubt, safety first. So, what I'm going to point out has no relationship with all the debate and no polemical sense. This because if all the long and deep discussion was not sufficient for resolving doubts, actually some doubts still remain and when in doubt, better to follow prudence.
But, just to be technically correct, the sentence "The EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection of 1993 sadly made the quite liberal italian copyright much stricter. That restoration became effective on July 1, 1995 in all EU members, as they all had incorporated this binding EU directive into their local laws." is simply untrue. This sentence contains an interpretation of a fundamental principle of jurisdiction (affecting both constitutional and international law) which is not true in this case: eventual EU's jurisdiction - a widely discussed argument in specialised law academies - is not as effective as here described, and still does not overtake nor otherwise affect national jurisdictions.
An easy and fast solution would be to add a short introduction to the sentence: "We decided to consider this controversial question, as far as we are concerned, as if...", or something like that. Please, make it clear that this is not a legal advice on the matter, but a Commons' policy. This to avoid further misunderstandings about the legal subject. As said, this is not by any mean related to the previous discussion, about which I merely would like to point out that law is generally studied and regarded for what it is, rather than for what it should be (this would be a matter of politics, not law). But the sentence, in its current words, from a technical point of view is a mistake which could give a false representation of the serious work usually done in Commons. --Sn.txt 15:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your bloddy right Sn.txt, except We decided to consider this controversial question.... The commons, and therefor most wikipedian users worldwide, decided to take the risk. A german group of copyright paranoia infected german guerillas admins decided here. -- 07:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As said above, I wasn't commenting the decision, I do accept it. I was only explaining why the indicated sentence - as it is now - is a mistake. No need of further polemic, if you have a better solution, well just propose it, I can only say that I'm still reading a legal mistake in a template and this is in contrast with the precision we are used to see here around. Only that. Nothing but that. --Sn.txt 11:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Errors in template[edit]

Can someone fix the errors in the template ("imcompatible," "italian," etc.), as well as change "know a second class" to "recognize a second class" (the latter being more idiomatic in English)? Andrew Levine 15:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Restoration information[edit]

European Copyright Duration Directive (93/98/EEC) say: Before the directive, different Member States had applied widely different criteria of originality and creativity to the copyright protection of photographs. These were harmonized by article 6, which states that the only permissible criterion for full protection (70 years pma) is that the photograph is "original in the sense that [it is] the author's own intellectual creation". Member States may protect photographs which do not meet this criterion by sui generis related rights. See: [11].

This template are restored according to informations provided here: [12], [13]

(Copied from template; not my words and deliberately unsigned)

"after the shot"? or after publication?[edit]

I am trying to read it:Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/(Ab)uso del template PD-Italia, and it seems that the protection of simple photographs extends until 20 years after publication. Not after creation. That is also what it says in the 2006 version of this template. The template should state a requirement of a publication date. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Television screenshots?[edit]

The template says that movie screenshots are allowed, but how about television screenshots that originate in Italy (like original programmes from RAI, before 1990)? Clausule (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

50 years from the time of fixation. See Chapter I bis, article 78 bis (page 23 of the document).--Trixt (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I don't mean to upload whole audiovisual works, but only screenshots. Are they different from the movie screenshots, that are allowed according to this template? I guess there is no difference. I explained my way of thinking at the Village Pump:
"I think [television screeshots apply to Template:-PD-Italy], as the template (and Italian law) says: "This image is was created and is now in the public domain in Italy, because its term of copyright has expired. It represents images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and screenshots of movie pictures (art. 87, law 633/41)."
Screenshots are images and they are obtained with photographic process (just like screenshots of movie pictures). So I guess they must be public domain when older than 20 years, originally Italian and with lack of creativity. But before I'll start uploading television screenshots, I want to ask how the community thinks about this. Just to be sure. Clausule (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)"
Clausule (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you are right: the law says comprese (included): it is giving some examples that are by no mean meant to be limiting. Furthermore, a video camera, be it analogue or digital, is "assimilata" (equivalent to) a photographic process, while the date of broadcast is the date of publication. Hence, single still images of television broadcast can be in the public domain after 20 years. Noieraieri (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
That's indeed the way how I interpret this text. Well, it seems to be hard to start a discussion about this. Maybe there's nothing to discuss about, as there was only little reaction at the Village Pump. I guess I'll just upload a few PD television screenshots and we'll see if they will be removed. Thanks for your reply. Clausule (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Id say the other way, better not upload any screenshots as simple photographs, they are mentioned different in the law so they will mabye not fall under this ruling. Dont upload and wait if something will happen, in doubt dont upload. --Martin H. (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't try to offend, but I had not read your comment here before I uploaded a whole bunch. I'm sorry for that. All 21 images are in this Category:Eurovision 1965. I'd say nominate them all for deletion and start a discussion. Just reading the text in the law I cannot otherwise than conclude this must be PD. I guess you're mentioning the articles about television and radio broadcasts (PD: 50 years after publication). These images however are only screenshots and don't contain audio or copyrighted lyrics. I see no differences with movie screenshots that are mentioned in article 87. Movies themselves by the way fall like television broadcasts under others rulings. (...and again excuse me for reading your comment late.) Clausule (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that you will nominate them for deletion yourself. You can not assure that the copyright status that you claim is correct, you uploaded them becuase maybe they are free... well, thats something we not do here. I dont want to dig in something that is not clear at all and that people later can blame me because of a vague deletion request. In my opinion such screenshots should not be uploaded here before the situation wasnt clearified 100%. --Martin H. (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
If he believes they are PD, then I don't see why he should put them up for deletion. Complaining that the situation is not clarified 100% is not a way to advance the discussion towards clarification.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I guess it's very difficult to be 100% sure about how law texts should be interpreted. And that applies not only to Italian law. I just read what the template says (in confidence that it's properly translated). I believe that screenshots from television shows (at least the Eurovision Song Contest 1965 screenshots I uploaded) meet the conditions that are mentioned in the template. I am very curious for reasons why 20+ year old television screenshots should not fall under PD-Italy. The only reasons that was given at the Village Pump, that it was a derivative work of an audiovisual work (copyright 50 years after creation). To me that doesn't make any sense, because movie screenshots are mentioned on its own in the law text. So please give the point where these ESC 1965 images do not meet the conditions in the template. And if they are valid, nominate the images for deletion and a discussion will finally start. :-) I won't nominate them myself, because I believe they are in PD and there's no problem with them. Clausule (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The law does not speak of screenshots or parts of movies. Thats already an interpretion and possibly wrong. In the WIPO translation[14] the law says film stills, thats photos taken for lightning check during filming or photographs taken for promitional purposes on the set. Photos created as a byproduct of the movie creation, not films nor broadcasts nor screenshots thereof or any other extract from the audiovisual work. --Martin H. (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
That is interpretation. And a strange one. Normally, a film still is a frame of a film. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I guess you have a point there. Let's see what the original Italian law says. It says: "fotogrammi delle pellicole cinematografiche"[15]. I don't speak Italian, so I hope someone can help. Trying myself, I come to this: it:Pellicola cinematografica means en:Film stock. it:Fotogramma means en:Film frame. Therefore I conclude that "fotogrammi delle pellicole cinematografiche" means "film frame from a film stock". I think that's the same as a screenshot and not exactly the same as a your definition of a film still. Again, I am not trying to attack you. But I really think that according to this law text screenshots are protected for 20 years. Maybe someone who speaks Italian can say if my interpretation is correct. Clausule (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
It only is my personal understanding as I said, thats how I would think of it myself when trying to figure out if im allowed to upload it or if i am not allowed. The term has to be checked for future screenshot uploads, I fully agree. There are a lot of screenshots on it.wp. In your case however you not uploaded a screenshot of a cinematographic work. The law distinguishes, in various places of the translation, between "cinematographic or audiovisual work or sequence of moving images" (§ 78bis.). The simple photography paragraph refers only to "stills of cinematographic film". Not broadcasts. Not moving images. Only cinematographic works as described in Chapter Ibis. This is a television broadcasting and according to §79,5 in Chapter II: Rights in Radio and Television Broadcasting it has a 50 years term. --Martin H. (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the very late reply. I confirm that the translation of Clausule is correct: fotogrammi delle pellicole cinematografiche literally means "photograms of film stock". Noieraieri (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I confirm. Let's clarify:


Alignment with {{PD-US-URAA}}[edit]

I've made up a table below for items that are public domain in the US, based on the Hirtle Chart. Perhaps we should include this in the template as well somehow. Let me know if I've made any mistakes:

Please note the following chart refers to publication dates, not to creation dates. An early creation date does not ensure the item is public domain in the US. The chart refers only to items that were created before 1976 and not published in the US within 30 days of publication abroad. If they were published in the US within 30 days, they need the relevant US template, as US law exclusively applies. If they were not published in the US within 30 days, and were created 1976 or later, they are not public domain in the US. Please note the following chart shows that we must have publication information about each image in order to prove its public domain status.

First published in Italy (across)
Publication date (down)
before 1923 1923-1963 1964-1977 1978-Feb. 1989 Mar. 1989-2002 2003 or later,
or never published
Published with copyright notice, registration, deposit with US copyright office, and renewed public domain not public domain
for 95 years from publication
not public domain
until at least 2048
not public domain
until at least 2048
only public domain if
{{PD-old-70}} (95 years from publication for anonymous/corporate works, or 120 years from creation, whichever of these two is shortest)
Published with copyright notice, registration, deposit with US copyright office, and not renewed public domain not public domain for 95 years
Published with copyright notice
and without registration or deposit with the US copyright office
public domain
Published without copyright notice public domain

Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The Italian term for simple photos was (and is) 20 years from creation. Therefore, in 1996, all simple photos created before 1976 were in the public domain there, and were not eligible for URAA restoration. However, such works only fell into the U.S. public domain if they were published without a copyright notice before March 1, 1989 -- if not published before that time, or if published in accordance with U.S. formalities, then the U.S. copyright was never lost in the first place. Not sure the chart needs to be that complex -- that seems to be mostly rehashing U.S. copyright law (and we do have Commons:Hirtle chart locally). As for photographic works from Italy, i.e. studio portraits, artistic landscapes, or other situations where the photographer had control over the arrangement of the photo, the terms were 50 years from creation, plus (for photos published before August 16, 1945) a six-year wartime extension, so for most effectively 56 years -- so those would be photographs created before 1940. Italy has since restored the copyrights on those photographic works to the full 70 pma, so many of those are now re-copyrighted in Italy but still public domain in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Isn't there an error with {{PD-old-70}} in the chart above? As far as I can tell, the {{PD-old-70}} published in the 1978-2002 range would have the additional requirement that they would have to be created (and not just published) posthumously in order to be in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Right.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
What? Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Between 1978 and 2002, inclusive, only works created after 1978 were simple life+70. Works created before 1977 were life+70 or until 2048, whichever was longer. So it wasn't until 2003 that works started falling into the public domain in the US because of life+70.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
2047 only applies to US-based works. The chart doesn't include those. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that's just a mistake in the chart. I don't see anything in the law which would restrict that section to only U.S. works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
If you have the law in front of you, please share the URL. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
17 USC 303 and 17 USC 104A(a)(1)(B). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
There are definitely several errors, but I'm not sure I follow -- it should go without saying that something cannot be created posthumously ;-) If a simple photo was first published in Italy from 1976 to March 1, 1989, it can be PD only if it was created prior to 1976 -- if not (or first published from 1989 through 2002), it is still under U.S. copyright, and will be for a very long time. If first published 2003 or later, it is only PD if it is PD-old-70 (or 120 years from creation for a corporate work). Simple photos first published in Italy before 1976 should be PD in both nations, unless the author actually followed U.S. copyright formalities for the photo, in which case the U.S. copyright would follow the usual U.S. rules (which is mostly what the above chart is). That includes the 1978-1989 period, which is marked as possibly OK, when it's not (if a work followed all U.S. formalities, it is only PD if published before 1923, other than the rare PD-old-70 cases published since 2002). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done.[16] However, I am still curious about the bilateral treaty between the US and Italy which would include subsisting US copyrights. w:Bilateral copyright agreements of the United States lists the treaties but only has a section number without a link; because I am not a lawyer, I don't know how to look the sections up. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, again, anything created before 1978 but first published between 1989 through 2002 is also copyrighted in the U.S. until 2048 at least. But again, the chart makes no mention of creation dates, which are critical -- since the Italian term is 20 years from creation, the creation date determines the copyright in Italy, which in turn determines whether they were restored by the URAA or not. Any such photo created after 1976 is definitely still copyrighted; anything before is likely OK, unless they followed U.S. formalities. Something created in 1974, but only published in Italy in 1988 without a copyright notice, would have lost its U.S. copyright, and since it would have been PD in Italy in 1996, the U.S. copyright would not have been restored. If the same photo had been created in 1976 instead, or had still been created in 1974 but not published until late 1989, then its U.S. copyright would still exist. The chart really seems to be a recap of U.S. copyright rules, without any particular interaction with the Italian law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
As for the bilateral treaty, a reference to "27 Stat 1043" is referring to Volume 27 of the w:United States Statutes at Large, page 1043. Wikisource has an index page for them at s:United States Statutes at Large; look at the scanned volumes index (many have scans uploaded, but no Wikisource text created yet, though some years are missing completely). For example, s:Index:United States Statutes at Large Volume 27.djvu gives an index for that volume, and the link for page 1043 goes here, where you can see the presidential proclamation that is being referenced. I imagine most of them are similar, but there is almost certainly separate treaty text somewhere, which the proclamations are just confirming, and the treaty text may be the most critical for how Italy treats works today. I don't think any of those treaties would affect the U.S. copyright at all, other than they show that registration and renewal etc. was available for Italian authors, but they may affect treatment of U.S. works in Italy (i.e. they may not be able to use the rule of the shorter term for U.S. works). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
As for the creation date: I'd forgotten to include the disclaimer. I thought I had, but apparently I only did so on this page. It's included now; it explicitly states this chart is only for works created before 1976.[17]
As for the bilateral agreement: I am not a lawyer, and I find the written text to be extremely dense. The relevant text is here: s:Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 66.djvu/1198. Can someone explain to me what's going on with this? Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
OK. Then the chart is just a recap of U.S. copyright rules. We often assume that foreign photos were published without notices, since that was by far the most common situation, but yes we do need to know they were first published in Italy so that we know Italy is the country of origin to use. The 1976 line is the most critical one -- I guess the chart sort of focuses away from that. Oh, and the yellow section should be red -- anything published in that time frame with a proper copyright notice retained its U.S. copyright through March 1, 1989, and no other formalities were needed, so its copyright would last until at least 2048. The lack of deposit may preclude legal proceedings until fixed, and limit damages, but it would not affect the existence of copyright, as no further formalities were required. As for the proclamation, it is just noting that 1) reciprocal copyright relations have existed between the U.S. and Italy under the 1909 Copyright Act since 1910, other than the right to profit from performances of musical compositions (the right in section 1(e) of the s:Copyright Act of 1909) which only existed from 1915, and 2) due to WWII, any U.S. copyright formalities (such as renewals) originally due between September 3, 1939 and December 12, 1951 were given an extended deadline until December 12, 1952 to file. I would have to think that is mostly moot today, except that Italian works published in 1923 had an extra year to file renewals. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong term[edit]

Hello! This template uses wrong terms while describing the field of application of pd-italy (in the English version and in the Italian as well). It says that the keypoint is when a photo is considered a "work of photographic art", [...] "Works of photographic art are protected for 70 years [...]", the template also states that "the simple photography must not have artistic merit [...]".

But: the Italian law never refers to the "artistic" value or merit of a photo, it talks about "creativity", which has a very different meaning. Actually, the subject of the whole law are (literally) "intellectual works with creative characteristics" (art. 1 L. 633/1941) and includes among them "works belonging to figurative art". This has definitely a different legal meaning. The law should be properly cited/summarised. Thanks. --Lucas (msg) 07:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Ruthven (msg) 10:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's one case[edit]

Before launching this deletion request for a photo to which this template was attached, I didn't think of seeing whether the template came with a talk page. Of course it very much turns out to do so. Those who are informed about the issues discussed at some length above may wish to weigh in at the deletion request. -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{edit request}} The link to the law is dead - would it be possible to put in https://web.archive.org/web/20170409054450/http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/30289/11419173013it_copyright_2003_en.pdf/it_copyright_2003_en.pdf to replace it? Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Thank you! -- User: Perhelion 19:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
PS: Maybe there is a more actual PDF. -- User: Perhelion 19:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at COM:VPC#PD-Italy wording[edit]

The wording of this template is currently under discussion at COM:VPC#PD-Italy wording.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Archived at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/02#PD-Italy wording. --Nemo 18:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Including 1976[edit]

{{edit request}} Please replace:

“If the image was created after 1976, please add {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}

with this sentence:

“If the image was created on 1976 or later, please add {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}

Thanks. -- 08:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Wording for Russian is missing. --Ruthven (msg) 09:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Considering publication date[edit]

Info non-talk.svg
It is requested that an edit or modification be made to this protected page. Administrators: Please apply <nowiki> or {{tl}} to the tag after the request is fulfilled.


US laws consider always the publication date for a work rather than its creation date, so please replace again:

“If the image was created on 1976 or later, please add {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}

with this sentence:

“If the image was created on 1976 or later or was published on 1978 or later, please add {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}

I forgot to remind this fact on the previous talk. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

If I got a photo snapped in Italy on 1973 but published worldwide for the first time in the current year (2018) would it be in the public domain in the US? I think not! So why is not the sentence above updated? --Morbius (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

There is even another error in this sentence:

“then it was out-of-copyright in Italy on the URAA date of restoration (January 1, 1996)”

because simple images created in Italy prior to 1976, regardless of pubblication date, are always in the public domain. I have to assume this sentence rather meant:

“then it was out-of-copyright in the United States on the URAA date of restoration (January 1, 1996)”

-- 09:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

"on 1976" is bad grammar in English. "in 1976" is better. "created after 1975" is even better and more succinct than "created on 1976 or later".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for my bad english even because it's not a good excuse being italian here! :-) You're right: "on 1976" is not proper in this context because we're not talking about dates such as it's explained here. Regarding the sentence "created after 1975" I think it's good too but that would not point 1976 out as the reference year such as it has been previously written on the template. I thank you for your remarks. -- 10:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
We could indifferently use one of the two sentences:
  1. “If the image was created in 1976 or later or was published in 1978 or later, please add {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}
  2. “If the image was created after 1975 or was published after 1977, please add {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}
I would personally prefer the first one. I also agree with the other remark about the United States just because URAA regards countries with or without copyright relations with the United States. But is there no administrator here?! --Morbius (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
For the Italian law, it's the creation date that's relevant. So we should specify both (for the US and for Italy). --Ruthven (msg) 17:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Of course! For the italian law the creation date is relevant but Wikimedia Commons is in the United States; that's why the template quotes the URAA: the copyright needs to be valid here, not only in Italy! What are we talking about?! --Morbius (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I wish to invite you to take a look at the template {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. --Morbius (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Someone proposed once to delete this template just for this reason: because what is really important here is getting a valid license to publish in the United States. The fact that a work is in the public domain for Italy is only an assumption for the american copyright law. Theoretically the italian work could be copyrighted in Italy and out-of-copyright in the US: that would be good for Wikimedia Commons but obviously not for this template! --Morbius (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)