Template talk:PD-UK-photo-pre-1945
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The tag is nonsense and misleading: Files created prior to 1945 are only in the public domain in the UK if they are in any other EEA country as well, that is 70 years after the death of the author for the most part.
- UK Copyright in photographs last taken before 1 January 1945
- How long does copyright last in the UK?
- Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection
--Wikipeder 12:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and all tagged pictures as well. Even the link in the template clearly says: "However, if such a photograph was protected on 1 July 1995 in another European Economic Area (EEA) state under legislation relating to copyright or related rights, copyright would have been revived from 1 January 1996 to the end of the term applying to photographs taken on or after 1 January 1996."--Wiggum 12:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, it does say that right in the template. So why blanket tag them all? - Themadchopper 03:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Because there are no pictures which are free under this license exclusively. Either they are old enough (70 years pma/older than 100 years) or they are not PD. That's it. Please witness that most tagged images are WWII-pics which were protected before 1945 in European Union states, therefore they are protected today.--Wiggum 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, it does say that right in the template. So why blanket tag them all? - Themadchopper 03:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete the template, but let us sort out the images, a few maybe PD like Image:Tsar Nicholas and King George Nw nicholas george 01.jpg. Jaranda wat's sup 04:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)- Keep Beware the EUCD magic wand wavers. As stated in Commons Licensing, under US law, any work which was PD in the country of origin on January 1, 1996 was PD in the US. This was permitted under the Uruguay rounds, and many other countries may have similar laws. It may not be so in other countries of the EU, but it is a speculative point. As the article on the EU directives points out, EU directives are not laws, and have no force of law until they are embodied in the laws of the local governments. The EUCD wand wavers would have you believe that the laws of the UK and Italy for example are illegal. This is highly speculative and asks us to believe that Italian and UK legislators did not understand the EUCD when they declared their copyright laws were in compliance with it. -Mak 23:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The UK has implemented the EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection (as have all EU members, by the way), effective date July 1, 1995. Hence any such restored copyrights were also restored in the U.S. under the URAA on January 1, 1996 because at that date, the restoration in the EU had already happened and thus any works subject to it were no longer PD in their EU country of origin. To Mak: to what extent local legislation for "simple (non-artistic) photographs" or for "government-owned photographs"—which are the two cases your dabates about Italian law are about—might exempt some photographs from the copyright restorations under the EU directive of 1993 and whether such exemptions for government-owned photographs might also be valid in other countries are questions that we should ask a real lawyer. I suggest you contact Soufron about it. Lupo 07:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted. Redirect to Template:Copyvio --Shizhao 12:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)