Template talk:PD-Afghanistan

Legal incompleteness

I have updated this template to address several details that were lacking from it but which are necessary to determining whether a work is legally in the public domain due to publication in Afghanistan.

Firstly, both the Berne Convention and the US Code have provisions for protecting citizens of Berne countries that might happen to publish in non-treaty states. Specifically, any work published by a national of a Berne Convention country within a non-treaty state is still entitled to copyright protection in their home country and by extension all other Berne Convention states. For example, if a Swedish man publishes an image in Afghanistan, the US Code declares that the country of origin for that image will be regarded as Sweden and not Afghanistan. It is still the case that no copyright protections exist in Afghanistan, but foreign authors are still able to assert copyright nearly everywhere else.

Secondly, both the US Code and Berne Convention consider the possibility that a work might be published in both a non-treaty state and a treaty state nearly simultaneously. If a work is published in a non-treaty state and is then subsequently published in a treaty compliant state within the first thirty days, the law considers that the Berne Convention still applies. Specifically, an Afghani who wishes to protect his copyright interests can arrange to have his work published in a Berne-compliant foreign country within thirty days of its initial publication in Afghanistan. If this occurs then he would have a defensible copyright in that foreign country and in all other Berne states. It is still the case that he would have no enforceable copyright in Afghanistan itself, since Afghanistan has no copyright laws, but this would not legally preclude him from asserting rights internationally.

I suspect that people have been playing fast and loose with this template in the past, and a number of existing uses may need to be reviewed to see if they comply with the relevant statutes. Dragons flight (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Add to template: State symbols, emblems, medals, flags of Afghanistan Are in the public domain and copyright is not required - (CPI-RUS) 11:03, 28 February 2012

Such items are in the public domain only if they meet the requirements already described in the template. For most official imagery and works, it is very likely that they were created by Afghanis and first published in Afghanistan, and so it is very likely that they are public domain. However, when it comes to non-treaty states, there is no special exemption for national imagery. In particular, since there is no copyright law in Afghanistan, they could legally decide to use third party imagery as national symbols. Is it likely that something like the hope poster could become a symbol of Afghanistan? Probably not, but there is nothing in Afghanistan to stop them from using copyrighted material. To decide that flags and symbols are in the public domain, you still have to look at the history of the work to verify that it is the work of Afghanis and originally published in Afghanistan. Again, this is very likely to be true for most official state materials, but it isn't automatic. Dragons flight (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

In the Soviet Union and Russia until 1991, also had no copyright, State symbols are required to be public, we cannot load State orders and medals of Afghanistan. If Afghanistan legally recognized by the State means it has its legal status. Insert item on State symbols! - (CPI-RUS) 07:00, 01 марта 2012

Unless their law says state symbols are not protected, we have to say that they are. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

new copyright law?

It seems a copyright law may have been passed in 2008[1]. I think it just took this long for an English translation to appear. They also joined WIPO in 2005. I'm not sure this template is valid anymore. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 16:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be correct. A good catch. Unfortunately, this makes for a retroactive mess. Dragons flight (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is something I catched prior but seems like I missed its significance. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 01:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Has this law been published in Official Gazette? If so, when? --Dereckson (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

My guess is at http://moj.gov.af/content/files/Pages/summary10.htm User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A "guess" isn't exactly evidence. Can we get a translation. Buffs (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Buff, see last page of Persian document. There is a copyright law in existence for Afghanistan. Nard the Bard, feel free to update the template to the correct version. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 02:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the "last page of Persian document"? Buffs (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As linked on the template this file: [2]. Check the last page. This is the copyright that governs Afgan IP law. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 03:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes とある白い猫, you provided the link. Good catch. Great job updating the template, but it's still a little wrong. 17 USC 104 does not specifically refer to the Berne Convention. Under 17 USC 101, "A "treaty party" is a country or intergovernmental organization other than the United States that is a party to an international agreement." Afghanistan is a member of WIPO but until recently did not enforce copyright. Also, Afghanistan now implements minimum Berne standards of 50 years of protection for copyright. I can't see any reason reciprocal copyright would no longer be enforced in the US. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 03:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"an international agreement" is defined in the same section to mean:

(1) the Universal Copyright Convention;

(2) the Geneva Phonograms Convention;

(3) the Berne Convention;

(4) the WTO Agreement;

(5) the WIPO Copyright Treaty;

(6) the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty; and

(7) any other copyright treaty to which the United States is a party.

So Afghanistan would have to agree to at least one of these in order to establish reciprocal copyright with the US. According to this summary they have not currently done so, hence there would not appear to be any reciprocity yet. Dragons flight (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Article 7 seems to imply that works must be registration. How they do so is up to the Ministry of Arts and Culture. Am I reading this wrong? Buffs (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Works are still covered by copyright even if not registered. This kind of mentality is required by Berne convention and/or TRIPS agreement. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 02:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about their local copyright law, not Berne/TRIPS (of which no evidence has been provided they are members of either). The Copyright circular from 2010 says otherwise. While the US govt may get things wrong from time to time, I'm trusting them on this one. Buffs (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It does not. I am sorry but works are considered fully copyrighted unless it is proven otherwise, NOT the other way around. The 4th item clearly is evidence enough that even unpublished works are protected under the Afghan copyright law. Works need to be free in the host country (Afghanistan) and the US (simply because of where the servers are) -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 03:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Works can be registered (there are similar provisions in the US and most other countries), which can help protect authors by providing a formal record legal ownership and priority, etc., but there doesn't seem to be any indication that registration is required. A law that actually required registration would be very unusual in the modern era. Dragons flight (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Such a law would be an obstacle in Afghanistan's WTO bid as well which is why there is no rational reason for them to draft such a thing as practically the only reason they drafted a copyright law is because WTO requires it. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 03:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What is needed

I want to thank the people that have worked on updating this; however, I think the updates here have thus far missed the mark to a degree. Per Commons:Licensing, Commons only accepts images that are freely licensed or "that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work" (emphasis mine). There are some limited exceptions, but non-treaty status isn't generally one of them. See the examples of {{PD-Iran}} and {{PD-Ethiopia}}. Both are non-treaty countries, but such images are only allowed on Commons after the copyright in the country of origin has already expired. Since Commons requires that the domestic copyright expire before an image is included here, that is what should be emphasized on the updated PD-Afghanistan template. In other words, the domestic copyright restrictions already apply to questions of what can be included on Commons (contrary to what the current update seems to suggest). Dragons flight (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Iran, there was an email stating from Jimbo many years ago saying we have to respect their copyright, regardless of what the United States is doing. I feel that for Afghanistan, it is going to be the same deal since we got the law, it is published in the gazette (so it is in force in Afghanistan). But I do know consistency is not our best strong suit. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we'll probably have to delete a lot of files from Afghanistan now. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this notion but would welcome this to be backed by consensus so that it isn't us four deciding it. We also want a Persian speaker or two to verify WIPO translation. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 21:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised. My understanding has long been that images for Commons must be free in both the US and their country of origin, and that this was well-settled policy (e.g. this). Given that a copyright law exists now, I'm not sure why there should be any ambiguity about whether we would apply. Dragons flight (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. That was what we normally did as far back as I can remember. However lately we had a mess particularly in regards to Afghanistan based images. I do not mind if people immediately start processing images but I just feel this is something that we may want to address to avoid future problems. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 01:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's not be hasty in deletions. In browsing through all the images (all 638), it appears many are government images, are too simple to be copyrighted, or are PD by virtue of age, and may not have copyright protection. Additionally, some of these may not be protected in the US but may be in Afghanistan and vice versa. How does Afghanistan view the rule of lesser length of copyright? Buffs (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Government images are not automatically PD. That may be the case with US Federal Government but there is no evidence that Afghan government has such a law in place. Historic images must demonstrate that they are old enough as in Authors life+50 years. This would mean the latest images we are looking for is 1962 provided the author died immediately or that the work was published in this date with unknown authors. We need the date of publication of the source material. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 03:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any special provisions for government works; unless an individual is named presumably those are 50 years from publication. Interesting law; does not seem to follow the WIPO template all that closely, though that may just be due to the translation back to English. Photographs are protected for 50 years from publication or broadcast, so it doesn't matter when the author died. However, the law only protects photography work that has been created using an innovative mode, whereas it protects painting, picture, design, drawing, innovate geographical cartography, linear writings, decorative lines and other decorative and imaginary works which have been created using any simple or combinatory mean or mode. So, it's quite possible that simple photographs are not protected at all. It may be good to have Farsi (or is it Pashto?) speakers look at the original version of the law, to see if any further information could be gleaned as to the intent of that phrase -- the term "innovative" is used in a few places in its definitions (and they notably use a different term when it comes to drawings and paintings). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This template is far too long

This template is far too long. It is several screenfuls, when, ideally, it should be a fraction of a screenful. Geo Swan (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to create a short version, consistent with the way we normally present PD templates. I would appreciate if other people would review it for accuracy and clarity, etc., and make such adjustments as are necessary. Dragons flight (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Afghanistan is a member of WIPO?

When I looked into this, a few years ago, IIRC, I found that Afghanistan was not a member of any international intellectual property organizations -- but it had "observer status" -- or reasonable equivalent, on one or two of them.

I request those who assert it is now a member of WIPO, or any other group, to link to substantiation for those assertions.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

They have joined the WIPO Convention, joining effective in December 2005.[3] That does not imply anything at all about entering into any international copyright treaties (the WIPO Copyright Treaty is completely separate, and Afghanistan has not joined that). So yes, it looks as though this law is only enforceable inside Afghanistan, and not the rest of the world. Still, we typically have tried to respect such types of local copyright laws. Everything does seem designed to join Berne at some point. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It is long long past the time when the WMF called for expert opinions

We have been discussing the copyright status of Afghan images for almost since I first started contributing images here -- something like five years or more.

I am extremely frustrated, and feel very let down that the WMF has not authorized the professional opinion of a lawyer or lawyers, who specialize in intellectual property law, to resolve the many issues with images from regions that are not part of Berne-world.

We are almost all volunteers here. We rely on the WMF for a number of things, fund-raising, server-operation, technical support, and, I suggest we should be able to call upon the WMF for legal support, in situations like that of images from outside Berne-world.

Sometime in the last year or so a couple of people who thought they had a new wrinkle as to why the commons should further restrict the number of images it hosts that are related to human sexuality mounted an initiative based on their new wrinkle. They described being able to get the WMF to call for legal opinions that appeared within 48 hours. I am not suggesting protecting children, or whatever their initiative was, was of equal importance to getting WMF's lawyers to clarify the status of images from outside Berne-world. But was it 1000 times more important? Geo Swan (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

w:Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Legal_team's statement . Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

I am disappointed the legal team did not clarify whether any uninvolved opportunist can rush to publish copies they acquire of images from outside Berne-world, and then claim all rights to them. Geo Swan (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Giving legal advice outside of an actual client situation is kinda dangerous for lawyers (thus why you see "this is not legal advice" on all such stuff), so anything we get is likely to be of that nature. But, for that question, someone usually cannot claim copyright over something they did not make, unless they got a legal transfer. However we'd have to know they are uninvolved -- they could have agreements with the real owners. Also, that Afghan copyright law almost does have some "finders keepers" language it in, if the real author is unknown, which is a bit odd. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, they can't claim the work as their own, but it is in the public domain in most of the world as Afghanistan has no known official copyright relations with anyone else. They can use it as they see fit. Buffs (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing upset me as much as the deletion of so many decent images created in the Soviet Space program era. But that was exactly what happened to images that were in the public domain until Russia decided to restore copyright and a US court verified the motion in case law. This is the way copyright law works. Your energy would be better spent if you sought a more stable source of freely licensed images. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 18:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Innovative mode

The unofficial English translation has the somewhat strange statement that copyright only applies to "photographic works that have been created using an innovative mode" (emphasis mine). Personally, I find this phrasing weird enough that I am very suspicious that this is a translation issue. The text uses "innovative" or "innovation" in a number places that I might more naturally expect to see a phrase like "creative" or "novel". I'm wondering if the intent might actually be closer to "photographic works whose content is new and original".

This is one point where I think it would be very useful to get a fluent Persian speaker to give an opinion on whether there is a better way to make the original meaning clearer in English. Dragons flight (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, if they really do mean to restrict copyright to only those images that were captured in an innovative way, then that would probably be good for us. Dragons flight (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It does contrast with the previous paragraph which protects “paintings, pictures, designs, drawings, [...] using any simple or combinatory mean or mode”, so from my point of view, the phrasing above makes it clear not all photographs get copyright, only sufficiently creative ones. However, I do not know how they define "innovative". -- Liliana-60 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

They also have this in their definitions: Photography, Painting and Statuary Works: are Two­-dimension and three-­dimension works, designing, photography and cartography which are created as a result of innovation and creativity. So they use both "innovation" and "creativity" there, indicating there may be a difference in meaning. But yes, it'd be great to get a native speaker to comment on the nuances of those terms. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I compared the Iranian copyright law with the Afghan one. Article 2 of the Iranian copyright law reads "اثر عکاسی که با روش ابتکاری و ابداع پدید آمده باشد" that has been officially translated into English as "Photographic works produced by any original methods". Article 6 of the Afghan copyright law reads "اثر عکاسی که با روش ابتکاری و ابداعی پدید آمده باشد" that is exactly similar to its Iranian counterpart except for a minor change that definitely makes no difference in the meaning. Therefore, they actually meant "original" by using the word "innovative" here. Americophile 22:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

We should remove {{PD-Afghanistan}} from images that are freely licensed (PD-US, CC-By-SA, etc) through other means. Some images were licensed with CC-by-SA and then their licensing was overwritten to {{PD-Afghanistan}}. {{PD-Afghanistan}} can only apply to images with Afghan-only copyright that have their copyright expire with age. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 20:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA works do have their copyright expire with age.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well sure, but the main point still stands -- if somehow there were valid CC-BY licenses changed to PD-Afghanistan before, under the theory that there was no copyright to license, then they now should be changed back. I sort of doubt that will be true for many images though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A CC licence permits you to do things perpetually: if you follow the terms of the licence, you will never risk any copyright problems. However, when a CC-licensed work becomes PD-old, you are no longer required to follow the terms in the CC licence, although you are still allowed to do so. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some images this can be applied to, there are also images in the public domain due to them being created by US Federal government employees while they are on duty. I want to separate these from the rest of the flock as we can safely keep them. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 18:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Any photo authored by a member of the invading militaries should never have been PD-Afghanistan in the first place.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Military personnel aside, even tourists get their nations copyright law. So if a tourist snapped pictures and uploaded them to Flickr with a CC-BY license, they can be tagged as such without problems. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 10:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, Flickr is a US web site, so images first published on Flickr would, I suppose, count as first having been published in the United States, and so they would be protected in all countries protecting US works regardless of the citizenship of the uploader. That's not the issue here; checking licence compliance is a task for the uploader. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This may likely be true. However, I do not know a single case law example though for non-Berne signatory nationals. The point is we have commons users that overwritten CC-BY tag with PD-Afghanistan tag or images that are tagged with CC-By and PD-Afghanistan at the same time. These can be filtered and exempted from the entire debate simplifying matters as these files are freely licensed through other means. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The US Copyright Office says:[4]

The definition of “publication” in the U. S. copyright law does not specifically address online transmission. As has been the long-standing practice, the Copyright Office asks the applicant, who knows the facts surrounding distribution of copies of a work, to determine whether the work is published or not.

In the current copyright law, “publication” is defined as “the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication” (17 USC sec. 101).

I suppose if they upload to Flickr under a license permitting people to use it (including a CC-ND-NC), then it would be published (i.e. distribution to the public), but if the image license doesn't permit people to download it, I infer from what the US Copyright Office says that it could be considered a public performance or display. Certainly, the US Copyright Office is not saying that all things put online are published. Things get messy if Berne countries don't agree on what's been published, but I suspect they don't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. Clarification please -- placement on flickr, with a free lisence counts as publication, but placement on flickr without a free lisense doesn't count. Placement on facebook, or on an individual's personal webpage doesn't count as publication?

  There is (was?) a website called something like photobucket. Professional freelance photographers used it to show low resolution copies for free of images they would make available for a fee. I am sure there are lots of similar sites. So, is it your opinion this would not count as publication?

  Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 10:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Again, the Copyright Office dodges the issue, so it's hard to be confident, but if you're distributing copies to the public, then it's publication, if you're just showing them a copy it's not. So if it's on a website, and they don't give you permission to download it or offer to sell it to you, then it's probably not published. If it's on an (open) website and they give you permission to download it, then it's probably published; if it's on an (open) website and they offer it for sale, then it's almost certainly published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• I am one of those who used to frequently place both {{PD-Afghanistan}} and some variation of {{PD-USGov-Military}} on images -- due to original wording that left up to uploader's judgment what a "work of Afghanistan" was. In my own defense I called for the WMF to get the professional opinion of a lawyer with expertise in IP law as to the copyright status of Afghan images. Over the last five years I called on the WMF to get that advice dozens of times. Geo Swan (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A "work of Afghanistan" is something first published in Afghanistan (and no other Berne country within 30 days), but Berne countries will protect anything done by Berne country nationals, so both tags really should never have been applied together. It's a fair point the tag did not make that clear though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I think we can agree that innovative here really means "original". The law seems to be a copy of Iranian law according to the same discussion. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 01:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

State symbols

State symbols are required to be public, we cannot load State orders and medals of Afghanistan. If Afghanistan legally recognized by the State means it has its legal status. Insert item on State symbols! - (CPI-RUS) 21:32, 06 марта 2012

We can't, there is no exception clause to state symbols, medals, stamps or the like. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Things we agree on...

Per discussion above and on Commons:Deletion requests/Very low resolution images in Category:PD Afghan and perhaps also elsewhere the situation with Afghanistan is complex.

I suggest we list the things we agree on somewhere - for example here. As I understand it the three terms on this version of the template was not disputed - the template just was a bit too long. So in that case we can add the three things to the "things-we-agree-on-list":

1. The work was first published in Afghanistan.
2. The authors of the work are citizens of Afghanistan and are not also citizens or permanent residents of any country that participates in the Berne Convention.
3. Within thirty days of its first publication in Afghanistan, the work was never published in any country that participates in the Berne Convention.

The first and third is very hard or almost impossible to prove. So either we delete all files or we agree on something else.

But we could demand a good source and the name of the author unless the file is very old. --MGA73 (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say use common sense. If it was an Afghan author, not known to be living elsewhere, and the image didn't get originally published via a wire service like AP, that may be enough to assume Afghanistan as the country of origin. The details about each image could be different. Publication online may be tricky, of course -- that's a thorny question in regards to "simultaneously publication" no matter what the country is. But the above conditions are necessary for something for Afghanistan to be the country of origin in the first place; otherwise, we'd use the rules of some other country. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be safe to assume that a work is PD in the US if the work was created and first published in Afghanistan. However, we would want the name of the author. There is already similar guessing with {{PD-URAA-Simul}}. I guess we should start request deletion of files copyrighted in Afghanistan, and after that there will probably be few pictures left in the category. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think they can be works for hire too. Many images probably come from their government web pages, which is enough to assume Afghan authorship to me. However, most of those would be modern, so not expired due to age. My only hesitation would be on the possible distinction of simple photos vs "innovative" photos, and we may want to wait just a bit to see if we can get a native speaker to offer their opinion on the text of the official law. It's not like we are going to have any court precedents to help us, so the text of the law is all we have. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

In a court how well do you think "innovative" clause would be upheld? I think we should disregard the "innovative" clause because it could mean anything. It does not offer a solid criteria and is subjective. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Um... courts just can't ignore words in the law. That's like saying to ignore the word "original" because it could mean anything (and countries indeed do have very different interpretations, fleshed out in courts, which could not ignore the word). There is an intended meaning behind it -- we're just not sure what it is, if it's simply along the lines of "creative" with a low threshold, or something higher. Perhaps it should have just been translated as "original", though the contrast with the wording in the painting section would seem odd in that case. Our additional problem is that it is an English translation, and the meaning may be more obvious for a native reader in the original law -- that is what I'm hoping for, is a native speaker to be able to comment on it. We also have no idea if there are legislative notes or other records of the legislative debates -- those could help courts (and us) too. If we can't turn up any more information, then yes, we should probably err on the conservative side, but it's still possible there is a Farsi/Dari or Pashto speaker on Wikipedia who could help (I'm not sure which language the law is written in), and it probably makes sense to wait a bit to see if we can find one. If not, it may make sense in the end to have a separate DR for quick snapshot-like photographs, in case more information comes to light down the road, and that would give us a better starting place for possible undeletions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Corrections requested

Can someone please correct the darkened part of this part:

• "Since Afghanistan is not a participant in the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright, works created by Afghan citizens and published in Afghanistan are usually not subject to copyright protection outside of Afghanistan. Hence, such works may be in the public domain in most other countries worldwide."

Thanks.--Officer (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct what how?--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think what is meant is change from:

• "...works published by Afghan citizens in Afghanistan are usually not subject to copyright protection outside of Afghanistan" to
• "...works created by Afghan citizens and published in Afghanistan are usually not subject to copyright protection outside of Afghanistan".

I agree it is more clear. --MGA73 (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this clause should be removed. This clause creates a window of content that would be in violation of commons Policies. We do not have similar notices to templates such as {{PD-Iran}} or {{PD-Iraq}}. Any file that is copyrighted on Afghanistan, Iran, or Iraq even in the absence of binding treaties are unwelcome on commons per policy. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 14:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Where do you get this information? Are you making up your own law for Afghanistan?--Officer (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Changed to only apply for works older than 50 yrs

Example uses

Example code: {{Copyright notes|Country=Afghanistan}}

Per U.S. Circ. 38a, the following countries are not participants in the Berne Convention or Universal Copyright Convention and there is no presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of these countries on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Marshall Islands, Palau, Somalia, Somaliland, and South Sudan. As such, works published by citizens of these countries in these countries are usually not subject to copyright protection outside of these countries. Hence, such works may be in the public domain in most other countries worldwide. However: Works published in these countries by citizens or permanent residents of other countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright will still be protected in their home country and internationally as well as locally by local copyright law (if it exists). Similarly, works published outside of these countries within 30 days of publication within these countries will also usually be subject to protection in the foreign country of publication. When works are subject to copyright outside of these countries, the term of such copyright protection may exceed the term of copyright inside them. Unpublished works from these countries may be fully copyrighted. A work from one of these countries may become copyrighted in the United States under the URAA if the work's home country enters a copyright treaty or agreement with the United States and the work is still under copyright in its home country.

Per U.S. Circ. 38a, the following countries are not participants in the Berne Convention or Universal Copyright Convention and there is no presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of these countries on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Marshall Islands, Palau, Somalia, Somaliland, and South Sudan. As such, works published by citizens of these countries in these countries are usually not subject to copyright protection outside of these countries. Hence, such works may be in the public domain in most other countries worldwide. However: Works published in these countries by citizens or permanent residents of other countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright will still be protected in their home country and internationally as well as locally by local copyright law (if it exists). Similarly, works published outside of these countries within 30 days of publication within these countries will also usually be subject to protection in the foreign country of publication. When works are subject to copyright outside of these countries, the term of such copyright protection may exceed the term of copyright inside them. Unpublished works from these countries may be fully copyrighted. A work from one of these countries may become copyrighted in the United States under the URAA if the work's home country enters a copyright treaty or agreement with the United States and the work is still under copyright in its home country. "Afghanistan" is not a valid parameter!

Per U.S. Circ. 38a, the following countries are not participants in the Berne Convention or Universal Copyright Convention and there is no presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of these countries on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Marshall Islands, Palau, Somalia, Somaliland, and South Sudan. As such, works published by citizens of these countries in these countries are usually not subject to copyright protection outside of these countries. Hence, such works may be in the public domain in most other countries worldwide. However: Works published in these countries by citizens or permanent residents of other countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright will still be protected in their home country and internationally as well as locally by local copyright law (if it exists). Similarly, works published outside of these countries within 30 days of publication within these countries will also usually be subject to protection in the foreign country of publication. When works are subject to copyright outside of these countries, the term of such copyright protection may exceed the term of copyright inside them. Unpublished works from these countries may be fully copyrighted. A work from one of these countries may become copyrighted in the United States under the URAA if the work's home country enters a copyright treaty or agreement with the United States and the work is still under copyright in its home country. Eritrea has enacted Provisional Commercial Code of Eritrea and Provisional Civil Code of Eritrea (extracts relating to intellectual property rights) which came into force on 1993.

Per U.S. Circ. 38a, the following countries are not participants in the Berne Convention or Universal Copyright Convention and there is no presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of these countries on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Marshall Islands, Palau, Somalia, Somaliland, and South Sudan. As such, works published by citizens of these countries in these countries are usually not subject to copyright protection outside of these countries. Hence, such works may be in the public domain in most other countries worldwide. However: Works published in these countries by citizens or permanent residents of other countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright will still be protected in their home country and internationally as well as locally by local copyright law (if it exists). Similarly, works published outside of these countries within 30 days of publication within these countries will also usually be subject to protection in the foreign country of publication. When works are subject to copyright outside of these countries, the term of such copyright protection may exceed the term of copyright inside them. Unpublished works from these countries may be fully copyrighted. A work from one of these countries may become copyrighted in the United States under the URAA if the work's home country enters a copyright treaty or agreement with the United States and the work is still under copyright in its home country. Ethiopia has enacted a copyright law as published in the Official Gazette (unofficial English (WIPO) translation) which came into force on 19 July 2004.

Per U.S. Circ. 38a, the following countries are not participants in the Berne Convention or Universal Copyright Convention and there is no presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of these countries on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Marshall Islands, Palau, Somalia, Somaliland, and South Sudan. As such, works published by citizens of these countries in these countries are usually not subject to copyright protection outside of these countries. Hence, such works may be in the public domain in most other countries worldwide. However: Works published in these countries by citizens or permanent residents of other countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright will still be protected in their home country and internationally as well as locally by local copyright law (if it exists). Similarly, works published outside of these countries within 30 days of publication within these countries will also usually be subject to protection in the foreign country of publication. When works are subject to copyright outside of these countries, the term of such copyright protection may exceed the term of copyright inside them. Unpublished works from these countries may be fully copyrighted. A work from one of these countries may become copyrighted in the United States under the URAA if the work's home country enters a copyright treaty or agreement with the United States and the work is still under copyright in its home country. Iran has enacted a copyright law which came into force on 12 January 1970 and communicated the official English translation to UNESCO on 20 April 1970.

Per U.S. Circ. 38a, the following countries are not participants in the Berne Convention or Universal Copyright Convention and there is no presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of these countries on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Marshall Islands, Palau, Somalia, Somaliland, and South Sudan. As such, works published by citizens of these countries in these countries are usually not subject to copyright protection outside of these countries. Hence, such works may be in the public domain in most other countries worldwide. However: Works published in these countries by citizens or permanent residents of other countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright will still be protected in their home country and internationally as well as locally by local copyright law (if it exists). Similarly, works published outside of these countries within 30 days of publication within these countries will also usually be subject to protection in the foreign country of publication. When works are subject to copyright outside of these countries, the term of such copyright protection may exceed the term of copyright inside them. Unpublished works from these countries may be fully copyrighted. A work from one of these countries may become copyrighted in the United States under the URAA if the work's home country enters a copyright treaty or agreement with the United States and the work is still under copyright in its home country. Iraq has enacted Law No. 3 of 1971 on Copyright (Arabic) which came into force on 21 January 1971. Iraq has enacted Regulation No. 10 of 1985 on the National Committee for the Protection of Copyright (Arabic) which came into force on 2 September 1985. Iraq has enacted Order No. 83, Amendment to the Copyright Law (Arabic) (unofficial English (WIPO) translation) which came into force on 1 May 2004.

Per U.S. Circ. 38a, the following countries are not participants in the Berne Convention or Universal Copyright Convention and there is no presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of these countries on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Marshall Islands, Palau, Somalia, Somaliland, and South Sudan. As such, works published by citizens of these countries in these countries are usually not subject to copyright protection outside of these countries. Hence, such works may be in the public domain in most other countries worldwide. However: Works published in these countries by citizens or permanent residents of other countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright will still be protected in their home country and internationally as well as locally by local copyright law (if it exists). Similarly, works published outside of these countries within 30 days of publication within these countries will also usually be subject to protection in the foreign country of publication. When works are subject to copyright outside of these countries, the term of such copyright protection may exceed the term of copyright inside them. Unpublished works from these countries may be fully copyrighted. A work from one of these countries may become copyrighted in the United States under the URAA if the work's home country enters a copyright treaty or agreement with the United States and the work is still under copyright in its home country. "Kiribati" is not a valid parameter!

Per U.S. Circ. 38a, the following countries are not participants in the Berne Convention or Universal Copyright Convention and there is no presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of these countries on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Marshall Islands, Palau, Somalia, Somaliland, and South Sudan. As such, works published by citizens of these countries in these countries are usually not subject to copyright protection outside of these countries. Hence, such works may be in the public domain in most other countries worldwide. However: Works published in these countries by citizens or permanent residents of other countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright will still be protected in their home country and internationally as well as locally by local copyright law (if it exists). Similarly, works published outside of these countries within 30 days of publication within these countries will also usually be subject to protection in the foreign country of publication. When works are subject to copyright outside of these countries, the term of such copyright protection may exceed the term of copyright inside them. Unpublished works from these countries may be fully copyrighted. A work from one of these countries may become copyrighted in the United States under the URAA if the work's home country enters a copyright treaty or agreement with the United States and the work is still under copyright in its home country. "Nauru" is not a valid parameter!

Per U.S. Circ. 38a, the following countries are not participants in the Berne Convention or Universal Copyright Convention and there is no presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of these countries on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Marshall Islands, Palau, Somalia, Somaliland, and South Sudan. As such, works published by citizens of these countries in these countries are usually not subject to copyright protection outside of these countries. Hence, such works may be in the public domain in most other countries worldwide. However: Works published in these countries by citizens or permanent residents of other countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright will still be protected in their home country and internationally as well as locally by local copyright law (if it exists). Similarly, works published outside of these countries within 30 days of publication within these countries will also usually be subject to protection in the foreign country of publication. When works are subject to copyright outside of these countries, the term of such copyright protection may exceed the term of copyright inside them. Unpublished works from these countries may be fully copyrighted. A work from one of these countries may become copyrighted in the United States under the URAA if the work's home country enters a copyright treaty or agreement with the United States and the work is still under copyright in its home country. The Republic of Palau has enacted the Copyright Act of 2003 which came into force on 26 November 2003.

Per U.S. Circ. 38a, the following countries are not participants in the Berne Convention or Universal Copyright Convention and there is no presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of these countries on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Marshall Islands, Palau, Somalia, Somaliland, and South Sudan. As such, works published by citizens of these countries in these countries are usually not subject to copyright protection outside of these countries. Hence, such works may be in the public domain in most other countries worldwide. However: Works published in these countries by citizens or permanent residents of other countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright will still be protected in their home country and internationally as well as locally by local copyright law (if it exists). Similarly, works published outside of these countries within 30 days of publication within these countries will also usually be subject to protection in the foreign country of publication. When works are subject to copyright outside of these countries, the term of such copyright protection may exceed the term of copyright inside them. Unpublished works from these countries may be fully copyrighted. A work from one of these countries may become copyrighted in the United States under the URAA if the work's home country enters a copyright treaty or agreement with the United States and the work is still under copyright in its home country. "San Marino" is not a valid parameter!

Per U.S. Circ. 38a, the following countries are not participants in the Berne Convention or Universal Copyright Convention and there is no presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of these countries on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Marshall Islands, Palau, Somalia, Somaliland, and South Sudan. As such, works published by citizens of these countries in these countries are usually not subject to copyright protection outside of these countries. Hence, such works may be in the public domain in most other countries worldwide. However: Works published in these countries by citizens or permanent residents of other countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright will still be protected in their home country and internationally as well as locally by local copyright law (if it exists). Similarly, works published outside of these countries within 30 days of publication within these countries will also usually be subject to protection in the foreign country of publication. When works are subject to copyright outside of these countries, the term of such copyright protection may exceed the term of copyright inside them. Unpublished works from these countries may be fully copyrighted. A work from one of these countries may become copyrighted in the United States under the URAA if the work's home country enters a copyright treaty or agreement with the United States and the work is still under copyright in its home country. "São Tomé and Príncipe" is not a valid parameter!

Per U.S. Circ. 38a, the following countries are not participants in the Berne Convention or Universal Copyright Convention and there is no presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of these countries on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Marshall Islands, Palau, Somalia, Somaliland, and South Sudan. As such, works published by citizens of these countries in these countries are usually not subject to copyright protection outside of these countries. Hence, such works may be in the public domain in most other countries worldwide. However: Works published in these countries by citizens or permanent residents of other countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright will still be protected in their home country and internationally as well as locally by local copyright law (if it exists). Similarly, works published outside of these countries within 30 days of publication within these countries will also usually be subject to protection in the foreign country of publication. When works are subject to copyright outside of these countries, the term of such copyright protection may exceed the term of copyright inside them. Unpublished works from these countries may be fully copyrighted. A work from one of these countries may become copyrighted in the United States under the URAA if the work's home country enters a copyright treaty or agreement with the United States and the work is still under copyright in its home country. "the Seychelles" is not a valid parameter!

Per U.S. Circ. 38a, the following countries are not participants in the Berne Convention or Universal Copyright Convention and there is no presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of these countries on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Marshall Islands, Palau, Somalia, Somaliland, and South Sudan. As such, works published by citizens of these countries in these countries are usually not subject to copyright protection outside of these countries. Hence, such works may be in the public domain in most other countries worldwide. However: Works published in these countries by citizens or permanent residents of other countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright will still be protected in their home country and internationally as well as locally by local copyright law (if it exists). Similarly, works published outside of these countries within 30 days of publication within these countries will also usually be subject to protection in the foreign country of publication. When works are subject to copyright outside of these countries, the term of such copyright protection may exceed the term of copyright inside them. Unpublished works from these countries may be fully copyrighted. A work from one of these countries may become copyrighted in the United States under the URAA if the work's home country enters a copyright treaty or agreement with the United States and the work is still under copyright in its home country. Somalia inherited the UK Copyright Act 1911, but replaced it with Law No. 66 of 7 September 1977. The new law was based on the 1976 Tunis Model Copyright Law and gave a general term of 30 p.m.a. for works. However, it also had a highly prescriptive registration requirement to obtain copyright protection, and no copyright registration office currently exists (if it ever did).

Per U.S. Circ. 38a, the following countries are not participants in the Berne Convention or Universal Copyright Convention and there is no presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of these countries on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Marshall Islands, Palau, Somalia, Somaliland, and South Sudan. As such, works published by citizens of these countries in these countries are usually not subject to copyright protection outside of these countries. Hence, such works may be in the public domain in most other countries worldwide. However: Works published in these countries by citizens or permanent residents of other countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright will still be protected in their home country and internationally as well as locally by local copyright law (if it exists). Similarly, works published outside of these countries within 30 days of publication within these countries will also usually be subject to protection in the foreign country of publication. When works are subject to copyright outside of these countries, the term of such copyright protection may exceed the term of copyright inside them. Unpublished works from these countries may be fully copyrighted. A work from one of these countries may become copyrighted in the United States under the URAA if the work's home country enters a copyright treaty or agreement with the United States and the work is still under copyright in its home country. "Turkmenistan" is not a valid parameter!

Per U.S. Circ. 38a, the following countries are not participants in the Berne Convention or Universal Copyright Convention and there is no presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of these countries on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Marshall Islands, Palau, Somalia, Somaliland, and South Sudan. As such, works published by citizens of these countries in these countries are usually not subject to copyright protection outside of these countries. Hence, such works may be in the public domain in most other countries worldwide. However: Works published in these countries by citizens or permanent residents of other countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright will still be protected in their home country and internationally as well as locally by local copyright law (if it exists). Similarly, works published outside of these countries within 30 days of publication within these countries will also usually be subject to protection in the foreign country of publication. When works are subject to copyright outside of these countries, the term of such copyright protection may exceed the term of copyright inside them. Unpublished works from these countries may be fully copyrighted. A work from one of these countries may become copyrighted in the United States under the URAA if the work's home country enters a copyright treaty or agreement with the United States and the work is still under copyright in its home country. "Tuvalu" is not a valid parameter!

Discussion

The template has been changed so now it is only valid for files taken more than 50 years ago. Earlier there was a text saying that

"Since Afghanistan is not a participant in the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright, works published by Afghan citizens in Afghanistan are usually not subject to copyright protection outside of Afghanistan. Hence, such works may be in the public domain in most other countries worldwide. ..."

Where do we have the basis for that change? I think there should be a link to the discussion or an external link if possible. --MGA73 (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Since Afghanistan now has a copyright law, but is not a member of any international copyright treaties, that quote is certainly still valid -- Afghan works don't get protection outside of Afghanistan. However, since Commons will generally respect such local copyright laws, any images not conforming to the terms on the current tag would probably be deleted anyways. I could see re-adding it, though, as it is pertinent information for re-users -- I guess the danger is folks using that as an upload rationale. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with shorter version because sooner or later that country will have copyright law in effect just like all others.--Officer (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The notice should be a different template perhaps. I'd be willing to slap it under all of the non-berne signatories (Afghanistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, or San Marino per [5]). It should be a separate warning. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have went ahead and created the template. Should I apply to all files tagged with licenses from the mentioned countries? Wording can be revised. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. I already created {{PD-NonURAA}}:

{{PD-NonURAA}}

Note that countries listed as Unclear, as per the description, don't actually have any relations either. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe add a U.S. flag to that to indicate that it is a tag for U.S. status only. A tag for the country of origin is still needed, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Errr. We need to decide on one template preferably. :) Mine is not a license tag. This should not be a license tag. It should most definitely not display the PD logo. The point is to say "use at own risk".

The template I created put's files under Category:Files not protected by international copyright agreements. It also has auto-translate implementation to add translations.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If anything, you should add all the countries I listed (except Vanuatu which, as I found out, entered copyright relations two months ago). -- Liliana-60 (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to delegate you the wording entirely if that is OK. :) -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I gave it a shot. Is it to your liking? -- Liliana-60 (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks a lot better. :) -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: if w:List of parties to international copyright agreements is to be believed, the Marshall Islands don't have copyright relations either (and not even a domestic copyright law, see {{PD-MH}}), but they are not mentioned in Circ. 38a. Should they still be added? -- Liliana-60 (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We should stick to whats verifiable. For all we know they just don't put their copyright in a manner we can see or they just have an agreement with the US. Perhaps the text can be bulleted? I don't object to the wording but the individual conditions do not quite stand out. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

w:List of parties to international copyright agreements could be linked in text maybe? Also Circ. 38a can be added into the template from the other now-redirected templates code. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, have a look at it now and tell me if it's okay. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

A lot better, I moved some items around a little. I would prefer "U.S. Circ. 38a." to be inline the text as that should be our rationale. I attempted this but I perhaps made the wording awkward. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 17:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• {{Non-Berne Signatory}} should maybe stress more clearly that the template only applies to works first published in any of those countries and that unpublished works are copyrighted in the United States and possibly also elsewhere.
• According to the Hirtle chart, Turkmenistan is a Universal Copyright Convention signatory, so it seems that works from Turkmenistan may be copyrighted according to UCC rules.
• The template name is confusing: the Berne Convention is not the only copyright treaty which is relevant here. Some other countries, such as Burma, are not subject to the Berne Convention but do have copyright relations because of some other treaty, e.g. TRIPS in the Burmese case.
• The template talks about a lack of a copyright treaty with the United States, yet it says that the works often are free worldwide. This is not entirely true; San Marino seems to have copyright relations with Italy (due to a bilateral treaty), and there may be other treaties between those countries and other countries, making such works copyrighted somewhere in the world. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As for Turkmenistan, they never signed the UCC: the Soviet Union did. It is unclear whether Turkmenistan as one of the successor states of the USSR inherits the UCC membership, since they never actively claimed it. (Uzbekistan joined Berne in 2005, so their works are copyrighted in the US now. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If you think the wording needs to explain issues better feel free to do so. bear in mind I can make it so that specific information is shown for specific countries. For instance "Turkmenistan" info can be shown if the template is passed a "Turkmenistan" value. I can arrange this while tagging the actual files with this template. In fact I will add a switch condition for you guys to fill.

Template can be renamed. It has a working name. If you have a better name for it, feel free to rename. Or perhaps we can discuss a better name. I do not like the name {{PD-NonURAA}} because it looks more like a license template. {{Non-URAA}} could be a name we can use though I am not sure if that captures the intended scope.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Parameter created. Feel free to add the relevant copyright notes into the template. I am linking to Turkmenistan and Afghanistan above as well to see some samples. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, to me, it could be a license template for the U.S. side of things, sort of a partner with {{PD-1996}}. If people want to start having a country of origin template, plus a U.S. template, this would be the latter one. As a general information template, it's pretty big. Plus, really it should just be transcluded from PD-Afghanistan (etc.) since it only applies if that template (or similar) also applies. I don't see why we need to require people to remember to add both of their own accord. If this tag cannot be added to a PD-Afghanistan file, then the file shouldn't be here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is probably a good idea to transclude it from {{PD-Afghanistan}}, {{PD-Iran}} etc. automatically. That also makes it easy to remove the template if any of those countries signs Berne or some other treaty at some point in the future. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Wwwwwwait! There's still the issue of works being simultaneously published in another country. It isn't as easy as you think. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If things are published simultaneously in Afghanistan and some Berne Convention member state, the Berne Convention states that the country of origin is the Berne Convention member state. Not sure if we want to use the same rule on Commons. If a file is {{PD-Afghanistan}}, the {{Non-Berne Signatory}} tag will almost always apply. I suggest that we transclude it by default and add an option to the tag which excludes it. Something like {{#ifeq: {{{1}}} | simultaneous publication | don't transclude the template | transclude the template}} could easily be added.

I suggest that we don't say anything about Turkmenistan unless we know exactly in which way the Soviet Union's UCC signature affects the country. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

But then we'd need a special template just for the Turkmenistan case. {{PD-1996}} doesn't work, because the country has no URAA date. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In either case, we need a special template for Laos, since Laos only has copyright relations with the United States through the UCC. But Turkmenistan is a special case since we don't even know if the UCC membership is valid. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Laos signed Berne this year. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we have been using the Berne Convention "country of origin" rule on Commons. From a practical perspective, if the Berne country of origin is something other than Afghanistan etc., then its U.S. copyright is likely valid for any remotely recent work (as well as in all other Berne countries). We only allowed PD-Afghanistan before if it was a work by an Afghan citizen, first published in Afghanistan, and not simultaneously published elsewhere. Those restrictions should continue to hold. If this template does not apply, then PD-Afghanistan should not be applicable as a valid tag for Commons either. The only thing that changed was that the terms within Afghanistan are now different; the situation with respect to the rest of the world is the same as it was before. As for Turkmenistan, the UCC used to list all the former republics with a join date of 1973 (when the Soviet Union signed it), but now they list the dates when the individual member nations explicitly agreed to continue membership after independence, and Turkmenistan is no longer listed as a member. For that matter, most of the former SSRs are no longer listed -- just Russia, Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan re-confirmed membership from what I see. I do see there was some agreement between the U.S. and all the non-Baltic SSRs, but apparently some never confirmed continued membership with the treaty administrators, and the U.S. now lists Turkmenistan as having no copyright relations. The U.S. only lists UCC relations with the countries mentioned above which did re-confirm UCC membership; the others now have relations through Berne only. Looks like Turkmenistan has a new copyright law as of January 2012, so it probably needs its own tag anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I want to avoid having one template per country. I introduced parameters to the template so you can update the Turkmenistan specific notes. There is no harm in pointing out the complicated nature of the copyright. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 21:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Turkmenistan has their own law, I don't see why they would not need their own template. Looks like a 50pma law as well, seems close to the WIPO template, and using stuff common to that region (non-commercial FOP, etc.) If you wanted to centralize the text regarding the international ramifications of non-Berne countries in this tag, fine, but the situation in each country is per its own law, and I don't think we should be trying to force those into this tag. Just include this template from the country-specific PD tags. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing is we can give more detailed explanation per country. It is a good way to keep everyone up to date. That way people can see how laws have recently changed. The intent of this template is to supplement existing license templates. Our PD claims could be false inside some countries after all. The idea is to assist reuses. I vividly remember the cases on restored PD-Old works which count as copyrighted in the UK for example.

I was thinking of slapping this template on every page with PD-whatever but your suggestion is more logical. I just am unsure about the text and I really would like to have help with that.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I renamed the template to "Copyright notes". -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 09:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? Please move it back. I for one see no use in having USSR notes here, no image on Commons will ever be tagged with that. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm? Do you have a better name? The scope does not exclusively cover Berne. I would be happy to move it under a different name if you have a suggestion.

The soviet option is just an example. Soviet copyright law has significantly changed and this template can be sued to keep re-users informed of such changes. The point is the template could be used to keep people informed on certain countries. For instance "Laos signed Berne this year" could be a note to appear on all images from Laos.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Um. I think the point of the tag is veering way off course -- it was meant to be specifically about non-Berne signatories. A general "copyright notes" tag makes no sense; the tag would get to ridiculous lengths, and each section would have material not related to each other anyways. If you want to document stuff like the USSR, put it on a regular page or discussion page somewhere and *link* to it from a tag. There is no reason to have copious text like that to be transcluded on image pages, and even less reason to squash them together in a separate tag when there are already copyright tags which can be used for the purpose. At this point the tag seems to have been generalized too much and it seems pointless to me. I can understand a non-Berne-signatory tag to specify the copyright status in the United States (since that is something of direct interest for those particular works), but not this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to address concerns raised here. Berne-only was deemed to restrictive of a scope. What sections are we talking about? Each transclusion would indeed be different depending on the country passed through the parameter. Only one entry would show depending on usage. Non-Berne signatories would have similar messages + extra notes when applicable.

The way I see it, this tag is intended to explain US-only copyright situations. We can talk about exceptions to that through this template. Isn't that what we want? Linking to it doesn't inform people as much as a templated notice.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 17:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Who deemed Berne-only too restrictive? Frankly, unless there is common text, there is no reason to combine everything in a single template. And no, I don't see the need for copious documentation (which should have references anyways) in a tag. I can understand making a single Berne template to transclude from other templates, but if we are just going to have a single section per country, just put any needed text in the respective country tags. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Each country has a different story. Countries can have multiple tags. A generic PD-Old is used at times but that is too simple. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As your template seems to veer off into the totally wrong direction, I have recreated {{PD-NonURAA}}. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I merely added options to the template so that country specific information could be passed. This was mentioned above in the discussion such as the special circumstances around Turkmenistan. I am trying to comply with the request here and people get upset when I do. I really do not understand the problem. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 11:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you fixed a problem that wasn't there to begin with. Is there a reason why Turkmenistan can't have its own template? -- Liliana-60 (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I too think that To Aru Shiroi Neko's template is getting too complex. If there are special situations for some countries, it is better to use separate templates.

I think that the {{PD-NonURAA}} template should be added to all non-treaty country templates. I tried to add it to the Afghanistan template, but MediaWiki complained about a template loop and refused to display anything. Does anyone know where to add the template for this to work properly? --Stefan4 (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Look I am here to offer technical help. If you want me to simplify the notes template I can. I just do not want to have a situation where it will later be decided to merge them all later. Is there a reason why "Turkmenistan's", Afghanistan's and other countries special clauses can't be merged to one location? Why do you want to have a more "simple" template? It is difficult to get people to translate multiple templates. All the complexity is kept at the layout template away from the translator's eyes.

I added features so that the template can be expanded if desired, if not it would return the same Non-URAA text. You can simply use the template without any parameters. I cannot see why you want to create multiple templates over one or two sentence differences between them. On that note, I have filled in the optional country-specific parts and you can see them above. Are you opposed to this feature in its current form.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 14:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion2

Any remarks? -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 17:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well as said above, we'd want to embed the {{PD-NonURAA}} template into the applicable national copyright templates, but due to some technical reasons it doesn't seem to work. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This template has identical text to it, I do not understand why is it that people want to use a separate template. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

because it's 1. terribly designed and 2. (in my opinion) doesn't make it clear that it's a PD license tag at least for the US. Compare it to {{PD-1996}} for example. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

How is it horribly designed? It has identical text and more or less identical look. Let me know the problem and I'll try to improve it.

It isn't meant to be a license template. Like {{Trademark}} it is meant to be a notification for secondary users. Any file copyrighted in Afghanistan is treated like fully copyrighted even if it is PD in the US. This is per Commons practice. {{PD-NonURAA}} would be a very bad idea in its current form as it looks too much like a PD-license tag.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 02:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but Commons files need to be PD both in the country of origin and in the US, so this template would serve as a notice that the file's free in the US. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. But I do not see why including the local copyright changes would hamper that. It will allow people to spot discrepancies between the license and it's use. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 01:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Afghan laws

• http://moj.gov.af/content/files/Pages/summary1.htm
• http://moj.gov.af/content/files/Pages/summary2.htm
• http://moj.gov.af/content/files/Pages/summary3.htm
• http://moj.gov.af/content/files/Pages/summary4.htm
• http://moj.gov.af/content/files/Pages/summary5.htm
• http://moj.gov.af/content/files/Pages/summary6.htm
• http://moj.gov.af/content/files/Pages/summary7.htm
• http://moj.gov.af/content/files/Pages/summary8.htm
• http://moj.gov.af/content/files/Pages/summary9.htm
• http://moj.gov.af/content/files/Pages/summary10.htm
• http://moj.gov.af/content/files/Pages/summary11.htm

Would these PDFs be portable to commons? -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)