Template talk:PD-Polish

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Fairytale Trash No.svg

This template was nominated for deletion on 15 April 2007 (UTC) but was kept.
If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first.


العربية | বাংলা | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | 中文(简体) | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Interwiki[edit]

removed from article; please dont put it there, as otherwise all images with this template get a interwiki there ;o)

en:Template:PD-Poland

CoA must not have thecrown - it's People's Republic of Poland![edit]

Coat of arms of Poland (1955-1980).svg

Image:Herb_PRL.svg

rewrite by Jameslwoodward[edit]

I have just reverted a total rewrite of English version of the template by User:Jameslwoodward who in this edit "clarified" (according to comment) current text to: "This photograph is in the public domain
(a) because according to the Art. 3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 of the Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) created before 1942 are public domain in Poland
or
(b) according to Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are assumed public domain in Poland." I do not know where the new dates and details are coming from. The template text remained basically the same for last decade and it is equivalent to the text used since the begining on Polish Wikipedia. Were there some discussions about new legal theories, if so it was not discussed here. Also Art. 3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 does not mention year 1942 at all. Where are those new details coming from an why there was no discussion here about such a major rewrite? --Jarekt (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Jarekt, sorry, I probably should have discussed it here first. However, except for adding the 1942 date, all of the facts (and words) are from the old version -- I simply split it into two parts for clarity as it covers two different laws and circumstances. The 1942 date comes from the fact that under the 1926 law a photograph had a 10 year copyright. Therefore, any photo taken before 1942 would fall under the 1926 law, while one taken in 1942 or later would still be under copyright in 1952 and, therefore, subject to the longer term of the 1952 law. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Jim the argument is that the same provision in both laws says that photographs that meet the listed conditions were not under copyright law at all. When the law changed in 1994 it retroactively extended copyright (Art. 124) to 70 years pma when the copyrights expired under the old law, but not for files that were never under the copyright law. May be this part should be explained somewhere. In the past it was explained at this talk page bit now it is being archived and not so easy to spot. Your changes are gutting the argument. However I also object to expanding the scope of existing license templates. If there is some new law that we can use to claim an image is in PD we should make a new template for it. --Jarekt (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think that the template would be easier to understand if the two laws were split as I did, but I don't think it's important enough to spend any more time on it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Jim if the template is not easy to understand I am fine with improving it; however splitting 1926 and 1952 laws is not (in my opinion) improving matters. The wording of both laws is almost identical and we are not using different rationale from each one. One clarification I would like to see is to spell out somewhere why 1994 law did not retroactively extended copyrights to those photographs, like it did to the ones that were not published but where taken before 1942. Let me ping @Piotrus:, as he was involved in this template longer than I. --Jarekt (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The wording may be similar, but conflating the two means that the occasional user (like me) must understand that the rule didn't change (much?). Better, I think to split them as I did, so that knowing the date which matters, you need look only at the law that matters and not both. Also, as I understand it, the 1926 law put a ten year life on all photos, so, as I said above, a pre-1942 image is PD whether or not it had a notice. That is a great deal easier to prove than no-notice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Pre-1942 images are not PD, as their copyrights were retroactively restored by 1994 law. The exceptions are files that meet {{PD-old-70}} and the ones that were published and meet current PD-Polish requirements. That is why nobody created in the last 15 years a license template for pre-1942 images based on that law. --Jarekt (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)