Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Italy

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

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

template:PD-Italy

[edit]
Please stop voting, calm down and contribute reasons based on the legal basis. Thank you.
Nobody is happy deleting files just because he/she feels so. As it was properly described by user:Lupo there are several good reasons why PD-Italy is not acceptable in Commons, namely:
  • The EU copyright harmonisation sadly made the quite liberal italian copyright much stricter.
  • The legal problematic distinction between a "simple image" and an "artistic image". This distinction is subject to different standards and adjudgements by different courts and thatfor in general not a useful criteria in Commons.

Therefore Commons admins and Italian wikipedians agreed on the following:

  • We leave that thread open until 20. September (exactly three weeks after the thread started). This should be enough time for everybody to write down their points and also giving local communities chances to be prepared on the matter.
  • The Italian wikipedians try to contribute in the meantime an expertise as they naturally have the best access to their own laws and court rulings. If there is no fundamental change in the meantime that voids the current view that PD-Italy is indeed unfree according to Wikimedia Commons own definition (it is not the question if we have to face a legal risk) we abandon PD-Italy entirely and remove all PD-Italy images in Commons (naturally there will be a review so that works that are in fact PD don't get removed). We don't say "delete" (although we all call it that way) as it is no longer a real deletion. Files can be restored like articles. So none of the valuable images will be irrevocable deleted.
  • If at some point in future it may happens that PD-Italy is indeed public domain we can restore the files.

Ridiculous. With the EU directive, the weaker protections have factually gone. "Whereas the protection of photographs in the Member States is the subject of varying regimes; whereas in order to achieve a sufficient harmonization of the term of protection of photographic works, in particular of those which, due to their artistic or professional character, are of importance within the internal market, it is necessary to define the level of originality required in this Directive; whereas a photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account; whereas the protection of other photographs should be left to national law;"[1] (emphasized by me) Thus "ist davon auszugehen, dass die früheren Maßstäbe, die eine besondere künstlerische Leistung oder Originalität voraussetzten, nicht mehr gültig sind und auch normale Fotografien als Lichtbildwerke zu betrachten sind." (de:Lichtbildwerk; It must be assumed that past norms, according to which artistic or original elements are necessary, are not valid anymore and normal photos have to be seen as privileged photographic works) And that applies to works that were created under past laws or were already in the public domain. Simply get it. Burn it ... you know, as above. --Rtc 06:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum 3: Please understand, Italian friends, the aggression of the deletion request is not directed towards you; it is directed at the general attitude of "creative" law interpretation and was a consequence of heated debate on Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC. This deletion request is a companion to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Soviet, which "you know, as above" refers to (it does NOT refer to ItalyGov).
Addendum 2: Please also read the arguments at Template talk:PD-Italy, the most important ones being copied below by User:Wikipeder
Addendum 1: Here are some court decisions from de:Lichtbildwerk explicitely discussing just the changes caused by the EU directive (Emphasized of parts which are following were added be me):
  • Für den einfachen Lichtbildschutz verblieben demnach (von Zufallsfotos infolge eines versehentlichen Auslösens der Kamera abgesehen) nur technische Fotos, bei denen jeder Fotograf mit denselben Fähigkeiten und Kenntnissen dasselbe Ergebnis, nämlich eine technisch einwandfreie Wiedergabe, erzielen müsse (also etwa Reproduktionen von Gemälden, Fotos von Maschinen, Fotos für die Verbrecherkartei, kartografische Luftaufnahmen und - im Regelfall - Passbilder aus Fotoautomaten). ([2] Austria, OGH, Eurobike, Beschluss vom 12. September 2001, 4 Ob 179/01d)
  • Entscheidend ist, dass eine individuelle Zuordnung zwischen Lichtbild und Fotograf insofern möglich ist, als dessen Persönlichkeit auf Grund der von ihm gewählten Gestaltungsmittel (Motiv, Blickwinkel, Beleuchtung uvm) zum Ausdruck kommt. Eine solche Gestaltungsfreiheit besteht jedenfalls nicht nur für professionelle Fotografen bei Arbeiten mit dem Anspruch auf hohes künstlerisches Niveau, sondern auch für die Masse der Amateurfotografen, die alltägliche Szenen in Form von Landschafts-, Personen- oder Urlaubsfotos festhalten; auch solche Lichtbilder sind als Lichtbildwerke zu beurteilen, sofern nur die eingesetzten Gestaltungsmittel eine Unterscheidbarkeit bewirken. Dieses Kriterium der Unterscheidbarkeit ist immer schon dann erfüllt, wenn man sagen kann, ein anderer Fotograf hätte das Lichtbild möglicherweise anders gestaltet (MR 2001, 389 [M.Walter] = ÖBl 2003, 39 [Gamerith] - Eurobike). Der zweidimensionalen Wiedergabe eines in der Natur vorgefundenen Objekts ist dann urheberrechtlicher Werkcharakter zuzubilligen, wenn die selbst gestellte Aufgabe, eine möglichst naturgetreue Abbildung zu erreichen, dennoch ausreichend Spielraum für eine individuelle Gestaltung zulässt (MR 2003, 162 [M.Walter] - Felsritzbild) (Austria, OGH, Weinatlas vom 16. Dezember 2003, Az.: 4 Ob 221/03h[3])
  • Bei dieser Beurteilung ist das Berufungsgericht von Anforderungen an die Schutzfähigkeit von Fotografien ausgegangen, die jedenfalls seit dem 1. Juli 1995 nicht mehr gelten, d.h. dem Zeitpunkt, in dem die Richtlinie 93/98/EWG des Rates zur Harmonisierung der Schutzdauer des Urheberrechts und bestimmter verwandter Schutzrechte vom 29. Oktober 1993 (ABl. Nr. L 290/9) nach ihrem Art. 13 Abs. 1 umzusetzen war und auch durch das Dritte Gesetz zur Änderung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes vom 23. Juni 1995 (BGBl. I S. 842) umgesetzt worden ist (Art. 3 Abs. 2 des 3. UrhG-ÄndG). Nach Art. 6 der Richtlinie sollen Fotografien geschützt werden, wenn sie individuelle Werke in dem Sinne darstellen, daß sie das Ergebnis der eigenen geistigen Schöpfung ihres Urhebers sind (vgl. dazu auch Erwägungsgrund 17 der Richtlinie). Eines besonderen Maßes an schöpferischer Gestaltung bedarf es danach für den Schutz als Lichtbildwerk nicht (vgl. Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 2. Aufl., § 2 Rdn. 33, 179; Schricker/Vogel aaO § 72 Rdn. 21; Nordemann/Vinck in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 9. Aufl., § 2 Rdn. 74; Hertin ebd. § 72 Rdn. 2; Heitland, Der Schutz der Fotografie im Urheberrecht Deutschlands, Frankreichs und der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, 1995, S. 60 ff.; Platena, Das Lichtbild im Urheberrecht, 1998, S. 233 ff.; A. Nordemann/Mielke, ZUM 1996, 214, 216) ([4] German BGH explicitely refusing the claim which the "keep" voters make here; Az.: I ZR 55/97)
First of all, not everyone here understands german, so please provide a translation. Secondarly, were those cases concerning german, austrian or italian photos? As I have said, Italy has a different criterium of selectin photographic "works" and "simple" photographs, and this criterium is applyable in Germany and Austria too, because of Berne Convention, unless in those countries exists a law that expressly extends 70 years pma protection to foreign photos too. --Twilight 15:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Laws exist in Germany and in other EU countries. Commons:Village pump archive-28#.7B.7BPD-UK.7D.7D: "Discrimination of foreign EU creators is forbidden in all EU countries -> no rule of the shorter term (Schutzfristenvergleich) in the EU and a few other countries (e.g. Switzerland)." It's all contained in the 1993 EU directive which had to be implemented until 1995 and which also erases the former Italian demarcation criteria. ("Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 1 to 11 of this Directive before 1 July 1995.") [5] EU directives are mandatory. And please see that 'Italy has a different criterium of selectin photographic "works" and "simple" photographs' is simply not safe. A German court has reinterpreted existing criteria explicitely according to the EU directive, refering directly to the directive and not to law. --Rtc 16:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Raymond Disc. 07:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then give a look before voting. If italian photos are PD for italian law, they are PD for the whole world according to Berne Agreement. The "vague" definition is set by the same italian law, and quite clearly too. No "UE directives" superseded that up to now, and even if it did, they are still PD because copyright has expired (and they can not regain protection). --Jollyroger 18:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Out of interest how can you cahnge the licens from PD-Italy (photograph created in italy) to PD-US (photograph created in US)?/Lokal_Profil 20:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Italian goverment decided in 2003 (Decreto legislativo 9 aprile 2003, n. 68) to enact the EU directive keeping this exception for non-artistic photos still valid. So articles 87 and 92 of Law 22 April 1941 n. 633 are still working, and therefore this template should be kept. What German government did doesnt matter. If the Italian goverment did wrong, it's a matter debatable at the European Court of Justice, not here. An EU directive can't supersede national laws without being locally enacted. --Twilight 17:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, for the copyright protection granted to these photos outside Italy, see Berne convention : unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work, i.e. an author is normally not entitled longer protection abroad than at home, even if the laws abroad give longer protection. --Twilight 18:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See, we cannot accept such idiotic argumentation à la "If the Italian goverment did wrong, it's a matter debatable at the European Court of Justice, not here" anymore on commons. We must assume that the Italian government did right and/or that courts will interpret the italian law according to the EU directive. --Rtc 07:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do we can accept idiotic argumentation a la "german law says that so it's the same in the whole world?"? Italian government did right and it just decided to keep the 20 years rule. It can do that, EU directive is not mandatory. Please if you don't know the situation don't mess up. Twilight brought enough facts to show your position is pointless. --Jollyroger 08:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Germany kept its 50 years rule, too, but it does not apply in the same way it did before. It applies only to a very limited set of photos, and in fact none of them would be of interest to commons. artistic content is not necessary anymore. --Rtc 09:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Italian law is different from the German one our definition of un-artistic photos is clear and is stated by the law itself: 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... there is no room for interpretation. The EU directive was implemented by Italy, italian copyright law was accordingly exstensively changed, but these two articles were left alone. So, its is clear that italian goverment thought they are compatible with the directive. Only the European Court of Justice could state otherwise, and force Italy to implement the directive in a different way. Until that day, in Italy copyright expiration term for such photos is still after 20 years. --Twilight 10:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, simply nonsense. A photo "is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account" (emphasized by me) --Rtc 10:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no, we won't. PD images whose right expired cannot regain copyright even if law changes. So the new law will not apply to generic images created more than 20 years before reception of the directive (that was partially received in 1996, so the event is quite unlikely). --Jollyroger 19:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Factually incorrect, Jollyroger. You cannot be sued for a violation you did before the law changed, but of course PD pictures can regain protection by a change of law. In Germany exactly that happened, and according to the directive it has to happen all around europe. --Rtc 07:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And please don't teach us how our laws work. --Snowdog 19:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The tag is perfectly legal. No need to discuss. --Cruccone 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Ilario 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- --Klaudio 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Walter Tizzano 20:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep E scrivo in italiano facendo i complimenti all'autore della proposta per l'arguzia dimostrata avendo usato il tedesco. Senza l'aiuto di Civvi, non avrei capito cosa significava quella serie di parole, a parte il ridiculous. Per quel che riguarda la norma, già altri prima di me hanno detto cose sensate e non posso che unirmi a loro. IPork 20:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Andrea.gf 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gvf 20:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 20:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Jacopo86 20:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep----Kal-El post here! 21:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --ßøuñçêY2K 21:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Dario vet 21:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Leoman3000 21:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Zinn 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Superchilum(scrivimi) 21:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notion that the national laws have become obsolete, that "this only applies to very few pictures" or "doesn't apply anymore" is disputed by the Danish Ministry of Culture. Denmark has implemented the EU directive, and later changed the national law on copyrights twice. In both 2003 and 2005, the 50-year clause stayed (§ 70, 2). The Danish jurists distinguish between a "work of art" vs. an "ordinary photo" without artistic merit. I see no reason to dispute PD-Italy, PD-Denmark og PD-Sweden given this basis. Valentinian (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because some jurists argue for breaking the law is not a reason for us to do it. --Rtc 07:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • my gosh, you have no idea what you are talking about; Italy mostly accepted the EU directive but mantained a reduced copyright, of 20 years, for non-artistic work. Your ignorace is funny, but your arrogance is scary. Paulatz 08:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your arrogance towards photographers rights is scary. Italy for sure respected the EU directive which EXPLICITELY REJECTS artistic content as a necessary precondition for the longer protection. It is sufficient that the personality of the photographer is expressed in the picture, which is the case as soon as he chooses camera position freely. --Rtc 09:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • FOR SURE... and you keep guessing. IT DIDN'T. comma. And it's a matter for italian lawmakers, not for us, to change the law. And choosing the position, according to italian law, is not enough. quoting Paulatz in toto --Jollyroger 09:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • By making this deletion request, I am taking care for the rights of photographers of Italy granted by the EU directive, which by some obscure fact may not have been saved in italy (but about anywhere else in Europe). You should see that the deletion is entirely in the interest of the citizen of your country. --Rtc 10:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --SCDBob 22:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep quoting JollyRoger and Twilight --Tooby 23:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • luckily, law is no case for voting and unless (instead of twisting the law) real arguments should appear (which is very unlikely), the keep votes are irrelevant.. --Rtc 07:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • so, just ignorance matters? Luckily law is on our side. --Jollyroger 08:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • By reading some comments seems that the only thing that matters is; someone awakes one day and decide that these images should go. Regardless of the fact that these images "are" PD. Like it or not. And since we are talking about what is PD and what is not, Laws matters a lot!. Unluckily, what is really ridicolous is Commons itself. On it.wiki, we push users to upload files on Commons. We even talked about closing file upload on it.wiki and use only Commons. We should change our mind on this and keep images "local". --Snowdog 08:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • These are not PD and should not be kept on it.wiki either. We are looking for clean pictures not for unlawful, unethical law-twisting templates full of lies such as this one. This has to stop, if not, it will be the end of commons sooner or later. --Rtc 09:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please read my comment here. I couldn't find any part saying that photographs should be protected for 70 years p.m.a. --Cruccone 09:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because you are mixing up the law. Clearly Italy has photographies which are protected by 70 pma. But since the EU directive has been implemented, artistic content is not necessary anymore, the criteria have been lowered, a lot. This does not even need a change in law as long as the wording is sufficiently ambiguous (such as 'simple photographs'). It is sufficient that the EU directive gives guidelines for demarcation. In this regard, it actually has a central effect on law even if it is not law strictly. The EU directive is there to harmonize law; it should be the same in all EU countries. It is simply argumentation against reality to claim the former weaker protections still apply in the same way. --Rtc 09:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sarebbe molto utile per la discussione se l'utente Rtc spiegasse a che titolo esprime questi giudizi. Ha competenze giuridiche derivanti dalla sua professione, oppure parla per parlare? Dai miei ricordi di studio, le direttive della comunità europea debbono essere ratificate da ogni paese. Io considero la possibilità di essere in errore e pare che altri utenti competenti dicano lo stesso. Da dove derivano le certezze assolute di Rtc? Tra parentesi, cosa diavolo stiamo a parlare se poi, come ci è stato ricordato, i voti non servono a un fico secco? Alla faccia della cooperazione tra progetti Wikimedia. IPork 09:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • And you have arguments instead of ad hominem attacks? --Rtc 10:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Rtc, you're saying that since Italian law protects artistic photographs for 70 years p.m.a. (the law was updated after the EUCD, BTW) the EUCD implies that all photographs should have the same protection? Where does this interpretation come from?--Cruccone 10:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No! I am saying that a photo is protected 70 pma "if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account" (especially artistic merit or purpose) That means if the photographer can choose position freely and presses the button deliberately. There is a very narrow class of photos left which are not protected, but they are not of interest here. Where does this interpretation come from? From a high austrian court (decision "Eurobike", 12. Sep 2001, 4 Ob 179/01d), from germany's highest appeals court (BGH, I ZR 55/9) explicitely refering to the EU directive. See de:Lichtbildwerk, it extensively describes all this, including extensive cites from various court decisions. --Rtc 10:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Ok, Wikipeder explained me that the shorter term rule does not apply within EU and that EU definition of simpler photograph is stricter than the Italian one. If this is really the case than the tag has to be deleted (Sorry I didn't look at 1993 EU directive - I thought 2001 was the relevant one)--Cruccone 12:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep quoting JollyRoger and Twilight. PLEASE: english and italian translation of the reason! Many users don't speak german and I could understand only from the comments. --Accurimbono 09:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Italian law are clear. The tag is perfectly legal.--β16 - (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Cryptex 10:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I trust the advice of an Italian lawyer on Italian laws more than the comments of some Commons user without a user page. Ary29 10:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So stupid nonsense by a lawyer counts more than a user without a user page but real arguments, court cases? This is an invalid argument from authority. --Rtc 10:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no reason to delete this template or question the validity of Italian copyright laws or how it implements an EU directive. EU law only supercedes national law to the extent of which the country agrees to that. If Italy has written an exemption into its implementation of the directive and duly passed as mandated by its constitution, it's the law. Sebmol 12:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I haven't seen anything even worth reading by Rtc aynwhere in Mediawiki-Land. Let's trust Italian users and laws, or let's have a Wikimedia lawyer explore the situation "officially". Rtc's rants are abusing and need not be considered. --AndreasPraefcke 12:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If that's what Italien law says than that's it. If Italy is in violation of the directive, Rtc is invited to start a violation procedure at the European Commission – every citizen is allowed to do that. Until then, we apply the law that is in force. --ThePeter 12:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Il palazzo 13:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Courts do intepret local law in light of the EU directive, as has been done by German and Austrian courts. Why should it be different for Italy? Please read the court decisions given above. --Rtc 13:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kenwilliams 14:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

[edit]

Here is an 'overview of the central arguments for deletion in English, copied over from Template talk:PD-Italy:

"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".)[...]

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. [...] As always, IANAL etc. pp. Thoughts? Lupo 10:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

End of inserted quote --Wikipeder 12:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree: terms given by Italian work are applyable worlwide according to Berne convention: unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work, i.e. an author is normally not entitled longer protection abroad than at home, even if the laws abroad give longer protection. I coundn't find in any EU directive a provision abolishing the application of this convention within the EU. So unless Germany has a law that expressly extends 70 years pma protection to foreign photos, Italian terms and criteria must be applyed for "simple" photos originating from Italy.--Twilight 15:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Germany has such a law.[6] and I guess the other EU counties have such a law, too. --Rtc 15:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is not one wikipedia vs. the other (although sadly one get the impression after reading the comments that started the theads) and de.wikipedians were quite unhappy as everybody else with the style of the first comments at this deletion request. I can say this for sure as I am de.wikipedia and Commons admin. So if you have any remarks concerning nationality issues please drop them at my talk page not here. Arnomane 17:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rtc, do you know what's your problem? You guess. You do not know. German law is valid in germany, isn't it? Italian law is valid in italy, isnt'it?
So, the Berne Convention, as Twilight quoted, says that a material that is PD in his country of origin is to be considered PD abroad too.
Italian law makers decided to keep copyright 20 years long only for non-artistic images. Just generous? Maybe. An error? Maybe. But law says 20 years.
Germany extended protection. Italy didn't. Why are we trying to apply a german law to an italian matter?
Is it too hard to admit you just misunderstood or forgot a detail?
I do not agree with the disclaimer saying that it will be deleted if no consensus is reached. To delete there should be a point, a good reason, and here we have only one user who misunderstood a kaw in a language he can't speak. --Jollyroger 17:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Germany did not extend protection. It has a 50 years provision exactly parallel to Italian 20 years, and applied before 1995 exactly parallel to Italy. These provisions were not changed in any way. Germany's highest appeals court however has reinterpreted the law according to the demarcation criteria set forth by the EU directive, refering explicitly and directly to this directive and not to law (the law itself does not contain demarcation criteria except the blanket "threshold of originality", but before 1995 they were interpreted parallel to italian law). Similar is known about Austria and it is not a secret that it will be the same in all other countries. The berne convention "rule of shorter term" does not apply in EU countries, since EU countries must grant the same rights to each EU citizen; they may not discriminate based on their local laws. EU directive explicitely states that "Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 1 to 11 of this Directive before 1 July 1995." [7]. Even if by some error it was not fully done in Italy (which I heavily doubt), this will be fixed anyways at some point in the future, and it does not affect the protection within other EU countries because of the general anti-discriminatory-laws. --Rtc 17:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Describing a legislation as "erroneous" is a very strange argument. Erroneous for whom except RTC? Furthermore, a "copyright restorations of the 1993 EU directive" has never been taken place. Such restaurations were regulated by transitional laws (In germany §137 UrhG, for example).

  1. Right, work that is not copyrighted in italy may still be copyrighted elsewhere in EU
  2. Right, work that is not copyrighted in US may be copyrighted elsewhere
  3. Right, work that may be freely usable in italy or germany may have usage restrictions elsewhere.
  4. Right, wikipedia commons failed to be a place of copyright free images.

But we are discussing fundamental wikipedia:commons problems!

Just to give an expression of what could be copyrighted:

just to pick up a few just uploaded images.

The question is: What should we do now? Delete any suspicios file, could affect 200000 or even 500000 images. Since there is a bilateral treaty between USA an germany all pictures claimed PD-US (and its sub categories) were copyrighted in germany like german pictures, since "public domain" is unknown in germany. Since there is the anti-discrimination they are probably copyrighted elsewhere in the EU.

If the foundation comes to the conclusion that only 100% copyright free images may be used in any Wikipedia we should start to work it out. But the Foundation has to decide, not Lupo, not rtc or Arnomane. We could operate the case like in PD-US, with a simple additional information. -- Stahlkocher 18:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The examples are misleading and are of entirely different nature than the problem discussed here. Please stick to the problem discussed here. The Italy pictures are not even close to 100%, actually, they are hardly close to anything. First, it is very unclear if these are not protected in Italy, since there are several strong indiciations for the contrary: The EU directive and the existing jurisdiction in Germany and Austria for similar situations. Further, unquestionably, these pictures are copyrighted about everywhere in the EU because of anti-discrimination. Finally, and most importantly, protection for these pictures is actually intended by the EU directive and claims that they are not protected entirely rely on law twisting that the intention of the EU directive has not been realized entirely in Italy. This is walking barefoot on lava. It is irresponsible and unjustifiable to keep these pictures when considering these circumstances. --Rtc 19:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must write a page on this argument, without forcing newcomers to read the entire discussion. May be the problem extends to:

  • Template:PD-Denmark50: This image is in the public domain because the Danish Consolidated Act on Copyright of 2003 specifies (§70, 2) that all photographic images not considered to be "works of art" become public domain 50 years after they were created.
  • Template:PD-Polish: This image is in the public domain because according to the non-retrospective copyright law of July 10, 1952, of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers published before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 without a clear copyright notice are assumed public domain. This applies worldwide.

--Riccardov 09:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, but weed out - the template as such is valid, as even under the EU-copyright-directive and WIPO-treaties every member state is free to set a shorter period of protection for photographic images, that are not considered creative works and Italy made use of that, just as many other countries (for example Germany). On the other hand, we have to make sure, that everyone who uses that template understands about its limitations. Only photographs, that are snapshots without artistic merit individual originality must be tagged PD-Italy. We would need a taskforce of well informed wikipedians to weed through the mass of images tagged so far and the italian wikipedians have to make sure, their users understand very well about this template and use it responsible in the future. Copyrights are crucial to our whole project. --h-stt !? 11:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC) edited --h-stt !? 20:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You ignored "a photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account" so there is especially no artistic merit necessary. Is it so hard to understand? --Rtc 11:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, but you still did not take into account what EU directive individual originality actually means and how far-going it is. Please read the German and the Austrian court decisions cited at the very top of the page. The class of pictures that would be left is inherently hardly of interest to commons and the template is too seductive for people to misunderstand what it actually means and that it applies only to a few rather academic cases. While the template may be correct in a strict sense, it is deceptive to hell, because it does not mention that "creative input of the author" is already given by positioning the camera and pressing the button deliberately, and that use under the 20 pp rule is only permitted for photos that are "simple, documentary" and without "creative input of the author"; NOT, as it is suggested, "simple, documentary" or without "creative input of the author". Just look at what the template is actually used for. You will see that not a single photograph will even come close to fall under the actual meaning of the template. --Rtc 06:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Italy is free to define the en:threshold of originality for photographs at a different level from Germany or Austria. From my understanding of the italian law, their level is much higher than the definition of german courts, where pretty much every photograph, that could have been taken differently too, is considered a photographic work. If Italy retains that status for truly original photographs only, then in this country there is a significant amount of images, that don't reach this level and therefore fall into the Public Domain 20 years after they were taken. We have to identify them and delete all the others. It would be useful to have italian court decisions of that issue. Are there any? --h-stt !? 13:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Italy is not free to define the en:threshold of originality for photographs at a different level from Germany or Austria; it must (and actually does) define them on the level of the EU directive, and, by reference of the well-established definition of international copyright law. Please read the court cases! Their level is not different from German, Austrian or any other EU coutry law. Of value would only be court decisions from the time after the implementation of the 1993 EU directive (ie., July 1995 onwards) --Rtc 13:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they are. The borders between photographic works and simple photographs are not defined in the copyright-directive, but are taken from a small clause in the official rational. This gives every member state some latitude of judgment, on how to implement this border. Until the European Court of Justice decides in an action for failure to fulfil obligations / (de:Vertragsverletzungsverfahren) or theoretically in some other form of verdict, the italian definition is as valid as the one by german or austrian courts. --h-stt !? 12:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC) PS: Just to understand the base of your claims: Are you familiar with the fine print in the secondary law of the european community?[reply]
The directive defines "original" to mean "in the sense that they are the author's own intellectual creation [...] No other criteria shall be applied to determine their eligibility for protection." The rationale explains what that is supposed to mean. So either we have uniform law in the EU, or we have some countries eligible for "action for failure to fulfil obligations". We cannot decide this but must assume the countries did implement in the intended way. Even if they did not, the anti-discrimination invalidates any rule of the shorter term, so the pictures will still be protected in many EU countries. I think I do not need to know fine prints to see that PD-italy and similar templates are not the way to go to. These narrow gaps in local law are without merit for commons because it is an international project. In the same way that we reject restrictions only prevalent in one or very few countries, we must reject PD claims only prevalent in one or very few countries. --Rtc 17:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't have a uniform law in the EU. By means of a directive, the law in the member states is harmonized, but not uniform. Only EU regulations are laws on their own and uniform all over the EU. Directives always have latitude, giving the individual member states some discretion in the implementation of the directive. That's part of the legal definition of a directive. If you really didn't know this, we would have the explanation for your bold attitude. It is my understanding of italian law, that Italy put the threshold of originality, necessary for fotografic works, somewhat higher than other states, eg Germany. In Germany there are no meaningful examples of non-works anymore, in Italy there are and they are protected for 20y only, becoming public domain afterwards. Just as the template says. So the template is valid, we just have to weed through the labeled images, if it has been applied correctly in the past. --h-stt !? 18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do not have a uniform law in the EU, I was really refering to uniform implementation of EU directives. I do not think such great variations, especially if the directive is very specific and clear, are permitted. Germany did not put threshold of originality lower or something like that, courts did this, interpreting law in the light of the EU directive's rationale directly after it had been implemented. Please read the court cases given above and their line of argumentation. German law does not say more than "photographic works must be original", the rest was not taken from law, but from the rationale. And in any case it does not influence the argument that there is no rule of the shorter term within the EU. The pictures are not suitable for commons. Weeding is not sufficient, deletion is necessary. --Rtc 19:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two aspects that seem to need clarification:

  1. The Italian interpretation of what is a photographic work (protected 70 years pma.) has been re-defined with the implementation of the EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection (1993/98/CE). See here, Article 17: English version Italian version.   {{PD-Italy}} is only dealing with the "rest", the non-works, images that are not "the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality", and this rest indeed is a lot smaller and fuzzier now than Article 87 (Italian) of Italy's Copyright law (unofficial English translation) suggests at first sight. In case you should need proof that Italy in fact inplemented (1993/98/CE), see these commentaries (Italian): [8], [9]
  2. The Berne Convention's Rule of the Shorter Term does not apply within the EU, only in relations of the EU towards non-member states. For details see the third paragraph of this explanation. For the Italian version of the European Union Copyright Directive (EUCD) mentioned there, look here: [10]. For the text of the Italian law implementing the EUCD in Italy, look here: [11]

--Wikipeder 12:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you see my text, you can see quoted part of the law in effect right now. If germany do not accept shorter term, is a matter for german folks. In the rest of the world, these photo are PD. --Jollyroger 14:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"photographic work" in the Italian law refers to the EU directive. Your fallacy is that you think that a photo can only be either a "photographic work" or a "simple photograph" and that everything that does not fall under the simple photograph definition cannot be a photographic work. That's incorrect. A photo can be both a simple photograph and a photographic work at the same time, and by conclusion, photographic work as the more specific law applies as a lex specialis.Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-Italy/analisys#Faulty assumptions has found out that italian law explicitly states that a simple photo is in any case not creative and thusthe simple photo definition is restricted to exclude anything that is a photographic work under implemented EU directive definition Thus the "photographic work" (as this term is used in Italian law, refering to the EU directive definition) is not in any way restricted by the definition of "simple photograph"—it is the other way around, a simple photograph that also fulfils the criteria for a photographic work has the 70 pma protection.
Also, any EU country has anti-discriminatory rights which invalidate the rule of the shorter term within the EU—in a given EU country, any EU citizen enjoys the full local rights, which also includes copyfight. It is not a matter of Germany. Please read this explanation --Rtc 15:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously rtc has no problems with "copyrighted anywhere else" with his own {{Template:Logo-Germany}}. Strange, strange. But as i already mentioned we have quite a lot of images which are copyrighted somewhere (or has other restrictions) in the world. To be an the secure site for the foundation they must be usable within the "fair use" claim. So, questionary images which are not used should be sorted out or reduced to thumbnail size. -- Stahlkocher 15:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please argue reasonably and not in a distorting manner by personal attacks. I added the Logo-Germany template because there were lots of Logo-Germany pictures here, but hidden, because they carried false templates (PD-ineligible and so on). The Logo-Germany has been created by me after the fact to mark these pictures, not the other way around. --Rtc 15:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I really tried to read carefully everything but I may have missed something somewhere. I'm no lawyer but I really cannot understand what's all this fuss about. On the italian wikipedia there are a few law student and a few professional lawyer; we asked them to study italian copyright laws and they ended saying that this template is legitimate. Of course they are humans and they may be wrong but I cannot find a single reason not to trust them. If the problem is real (and I don't think it is) why we don't simply ask the wikipedia lawyer to study the case and to tell us what's the official interpretation? We can go on forever chatting and fighting about who's right and who's wrong but I don't feel it particularly constructive (maybe it's just me...) --Berto 12:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template, in essence is valid but its interpretation and actual use is not (the false belief, which stems from connotations of pre-1993-directive-law, that "photographic works" need artistic merit or purpose, and anything which does not have such merit or purpose would be a simple photograph). Please also see that the foundation does not have to and cannot make any official interpretations, because it is only providing the platform and in no way involved in the content. Responsible for content are solely the contributors. If you want a binding advice you have to ask your own lawyer, why should the foundation pay one for you?! The foundation has its lawyer to advise the foundation about general platform issues, not for contributors. So for example, if some project does not stay resonable, and the lawyer sees that it's too much of a danger for the foundation to provide a platform for lots of obvious copyvios, such projects will be deleted by the foundation, as has been done for wikiquote:fr:Accueil and as is threatening for commons. A photographic work (in the sense of the well-established berne convention definition as refered to by the EU directive as implemented in Italian and other EU countries laws) is any photo that a different photographer could in principle have done differently (that is meant by 'creative' or 'original'), which excludes only a very narrow class of photos. Examples for non-works under the EU directive implementation courts have given: mug shots, regular photos from passport photographing machines, reproduction photography (probably not even copyrighted under "simple photographies"), cartographic air photos from prespecified camera position and angle. This is so because for these cases the result is independent from the photographer. We should not keep the template, since it's used incorrectly according to obsolete pre-1993-directive law anyway, since all photographs currently used under this template are photographic works and are thus ineligible for the template --Rtc 13:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A honest version of the template

[edit]

Here is a version of the template representing the actual situation honestly and correctly:

Public domain This image was created and is now in the public domain in Italy, because its term of copyright has expired. Photographic works according to the uniform EU standard enter the public domain 70 years after their author's death. The definition of photographic works was implemenented according to the 1993 EU directive on copyright and refers to the very broad and well-established Berne Convention definition, which deems a photo as creative if only a different photographer with the same skill could in principle have shot the photo in a different way; no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account (which is given as soon as the photographer can vary the camera position freely and presses the button deliberately). A photo which is not creative under this definition (mug shots, regular photos from passport photographing machines, cartographic air photos from prespecified camera position and angle, ie., if they would come out exactly the same, regardless of the photographer who does them) may still be protected as 'simple' photographs according to the Law of 22 April 1941 n. 633, revised by the law of 22 May 2004, n. 128 article 87 and article 92 if it, additionally, displays people or aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, is a reproduction of figurative art or is a screenshot of movie picture (Warning signNOTEWarning sign: these conditions are necessary and not sufficient for photos to be simple photos and expecially are not a demarcation criterion to determine if something is a photographic work or not) and enters the public domain after 20 years counted from January 1st of the calender year following their first publication. This is a very narrow class and hardly includes any picture of interest to commons.

--Rtc 14:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try with

Public domain 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). The "simple photography" must not have artistic merit or reflections of photographer creativity or personality, so according to art. 87 and 92 of italian law n.633, 22 April 1941 and later revisions it is to be considered public domain 20 years after the shot.
Being PD in the country of origin, they are PD in the USA under Title17 104A h6b, and in most of Europe according to Berne Convention.
Although that, some countries as Germany and Austria could provide extra protection for these photo, so their use may be subject to specific limitations.

And to be honest, we must also say that if image does not show name of the photographer and date of the shot, that could be usable even before the 20 years, without rights due to anyone, according to art. 90 of law 633/41.
In Italy protection for photographers sucks? Yes, but who cares. We are just following the law. --Jollyroger 14:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No your template is extremely misleading. It would be correct if you write "The 'simple photography' must not already be a 'photographic work', ie., a different photographer with the same skill must not even in principle have been able to shot the photo in a different way. It is nonsense to claim that Germany and Austria are special. the whole EU and any other countries with contracts overriding the Berne Convention rule of the shorter term has these provisions. This for example means that these 'simple photographs' are protected in Germany 50 years pp. Here is the correct logic to use:
Is it a photographic work? ("would a different photographer with the same skill in principle be able to shot the photo in a different way?")
  1. Yes (99.9999%): 70 pma
  2. No (0.0001%):
    Is it an "image 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" AND NOT ALREADY A PHOTOGRAPHIC WORK? (some of these aspects may be mutually exclusive to the nature of simple photographs and may inherently not apply to any picture of the content described here)?
    1. Yes (0.000099999%):
      art. 90 of law 633/41 conditions?
      1. Yes (0.0000999989999%): 20 pp
      2. No (0.0000000000001%): Public Domain
    2. No (0.000000001%): Public Domain
In any case, all pictures currently tagged as PD-Italy which are not 70 pma already have to be deleted. (I think that should be clear, because they are actually not simple photographies.) And why should we have a misleading template if we have a non-misleading one. In Italy protection for photographers sucks? Not at all, because 99.9999% of all photos are protected 70 pma and another 0.0000999989999% 20pp, and only 0.0000000010001% are in the PD from the very beginning (reproduction photography of paintings, documents, etc.). --Rtc 14:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But we could have 100% of perfectly PD photos (anyway, your stats are random and obviously instrumental), and with your misisnterpretations of our law we have to delete them. Well done, Mr Smart, that's a point! --Jollyroger 17:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my interpretation, but factual. I am not misinterpreting anything. Of course if you do interest-biased ('don't care, just somehow construct PD, even if obscurely') law-twisting as has been a common sport on the commons, you will always get to your conclusion. Please see that this era is over now. It is not on my part to prove by court case that your claim is incorrect, it is on your part to prove by court case that your claim is correct, if you want to keep such pictures. --Rtc 18:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but all this looks to me like a conspirary of a copyright interested lobby. Bring 5 man in and start a total misleading action. This may became "law" in wikipedia and so it must be the truth in the real world too? All the claimes of RTC, Wikipeder, Arnomane etc. were forced by a small group, partially interested in installing a new "truth". All this may be an experiment of social/psychology-scientists and we are the guinea pigs. Is this the real "animal farm", where a new thruth is installeted by a group of leaders, POV to its limits, but the faithfull "thruth"? -- 80.145.57.122 09:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To explain this a little bit more. The eu directive is not, as mentioned here severall times a "law". Copyright law is, EU wide still national law, although it should be very equal througout the states. This is mentioned at

  • Article 13
  • General provisions
  • 1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 1 to 11 of this Directive before 1 July 1995.

I think it is impossible to change this to "There is an EU-Copyright-Law"

But if you start with a false claim, where will end: With a false claim. -- 80.145.57.122 09:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep --[[:it:Utente:.mau.|.mau. <font size=" +1">[[:it:Discussioni utente:.mau.| &#x2709;]]</font>]] 10:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC) (until EU will successfully start and end a violation procedure, Italian law allows such photos)[reply]
    • Nobody claimed, as is falsely claimed here, that EU directives are law. They are quasi-law, by mandatory local implementation. If the pictures should be legal according to Italian law because of an error, that a) Does not make them legal in any other EU country. Also, because of anti-discrimination, no rule of the shorter term is applicable within the EU, since each EU citizen enjoys in foreign EU countries the same rights as the people there. This makes forum shopping possible, so an italian photographer can sue Commons in Germany, Austria and many other EU countries implementing the directive as intended. it can be expected, if something was not done in italian law, that it will be fixed by violation procedure at the first opportunity. Commons is not an italian project and not bound only to italian law, but must respect at least the majority of EU countries. Italy does not rule the world, if I may use the polemic argument as has been used by some here. BTW, IP is incorrect that if you start with a false claim, you end with a false claim. In fact, by the logic law of contradiction in classic logic, from a false presupposition, you can deduce anything, everything that's true and everything that's false. So the conclusion that the pictures have to be deleted is not wrong automatically because some presuppositions of some arguments for deletion might be wrong. --Rtc 11:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The political debate

[edit]

What about concentrating on a political debate instead of a legalistic one? The template clearly is not illegal, but that is not the point.

Wikimedia projects should not keep exceptions that are based on subjective interpretations such as if an image is any creative or not. We need clear cut and unambiguous criteria so that anybody can check if they are fulfilled. It's a Wiki, after all.

We may well lose the odd image that we could legally host, but we will protect the projects and their users from stealth non-free content. This is far more important. --Wikipeder 15:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it'a a good idea: can't you just aknowledge that you were wrong? I fear that if we prove that you are wrong even from a political point of wiev that you'll propose to move on to the phylosophycal debate, and later to the teological one (is Italian copyright law a sin? Even on Saturday?). Bye, paulatz 16:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
?!? What are you talking about? That was my argumentation right from the beginning. Anyway, this is not about winning a war against "sti crucchi di merda" at the detriment of the Commons, WP and Italian photographers. It's about improving the projects. --Wikipeder 20:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The EU-wide uniform distinction between photographic works and non-works is not subjective, it is quite objective. For photos not be "photographic works" they must come out exactly the same, regardless of the photographer who does them'. That's given as soon as the purpose of the photography determines the camera angle and content of the photo (mugshots, etc.). That's the objective EU-wide criterion--Rtc 16:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why "subjective interpretations such as if an image is any creative or not"?
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
Means:
  • all screenshots from italian movies before 1985
  • all photos of people in daily business
  • almost all photos from newspapers
  • all reproductions of figurative art when subject's copyright is not overlapping (i.e there is the 70YC for the painting itself)
  • almost all the "standard" tourist photos (Mr Rossi in Venice with gondolas is a "fact of social life")
That is how italian law received the directive. No one had problems with that in the EU government. Rtc can always ask an european court for a decision, we will be waiting; meanwhile german and austrian friends could always not use the photos, of course removing that from their commercial/DVD versions of wikipedia. --Jollyroger 17:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
only non-creative images in the first place as set forth by italian law art. 44, art. 88, refering to the international photo definition of "creative". The "photographic work" is uniform in all the EU countries, "italian law received the directive" is a statement which is not meaningful. There is no variation possible in implementing the directives (and italy did not apply any variation). They are mandatory, so Italian law received the directive exactly the same as any other countries. The things you are listing are simple photographies only under the presupposition that they are not creative in the first place, and creative is anything where the photographer positions the camera freely and presses the button, as uniformly implemented in all EU countries. You can repeat your false claim, it won't become more correct the more often you repeat it. The way italian law defines "simple photos" there basically are none of them (would a mug shot, which is not protected as a photographic work because the camera position and content cannot be chosen freely, fulfil the barriers set forth above for a simple foto? I doubt it). Simple photographs clause in italian law is an artifact of the past, not of any significance, because the conditions it poses almost inherently already are "creative" images in the sense of a photographic work in the international definition implemented in italian law. Besides that, deletion of the images, as you can see on the very top, will happen if no real new arguments appear, and your false claims won't have any effect on it anymore, because they only repeat the same old, point of view which was true only before the implementation of the 1993 directive and which is a thing of the past. Contrary to the false claim you are repeating, it does not have anything to do with Germany or Austria. These happen to be two EU countries where court cases are present with respect to the new EU-wide "photographic work". In any other country, the outcome will be the same since the rulings were explicitly (citing directly) based on the demarcation criteria as defined by the general EU-wide uniform directive (with only the general "photographic works are protected 70 pma" being taken from the actual german law), not taking into account the German "simple photograph" rule in any way for determining this demarcation, as you want to do for Italy, but which no judge who knows European Union jurisdiction would do in ANY EU country. --Rtc 18:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rtc, subjective the criteria are in the sense that you need a court to clarify things (and not even that helps, as we see) and that one has to look up lots of stuff to (possibly) accept the validity of the criteria.
Jollyroger, in your interpretation—which I deem incorrect—, subjective and vage are e. g. the distinction of what makes images of people works, what exactly "aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life" are, what "people in daily business" are, to which of "almost all photos of newspapers" the exemption applies and what a "standard" tourist photo would be.
Exceptions based on hard data such as a date are much safer and preferable. --Wikipeder 20:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Lupo's comment at [12]. It shows that stricly speaking, the way I see it is the supposed effect of the EU directive implementation on the Italian law. However, it says that the italian goverment did implement the EU directive in such a misleading and distorted manner and perhaps failed to understand what the EU directive was actually all about, that there is the danger of the law may not be legally interpretable in the intended meaning of the EU directive. This is a "gray area" of italian law. I think Commons should not rely on gray areas and on the possibility of local laws questionably contradicting EU directive (which could be sued for easily on european court).It was refering to PD-italy-gov --Rtc 21:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non work

[edit]

The general treshold for work oand originality is not as low as allways claimed in this dispute. Have a look.

These pictures were not even made on the same day.

Just consider images made for documentation as "non-works". -- Stahlkocher 15:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would a different photographer in principle have been able to shot the photos in a different way? Surely, since he could chose the camera position freely. They are clearly works in the sense of the EU directive definition. --Rtc 15:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the concept of non-artistic may seem strange from the point of view of the german law; but it's pretty clear from the point of view of the italian law. In order to claim that your photograph is artistic you have to enforce your claim: you have to make money (or try to make money) out of it for it's artistic value, not for it's descriptives value. All the difference is between the descriptive (or simple') and the artistic (or creative) value of the photograph. Usually a photograph published by a newspaper is used for it's descriptive value; if it has some artistic value it's even better but the main goal of the photograph is to show some simple aspect of social life, some people (e.g. the prime minister of Sweden) or some other fact. There are some exceptions of course; like art magazines which may publish a photohgraph for it's artistic value. Paulatz 16:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Protection is supposed to be uniform in the EU after the directive implementation, as the directive rationale explicitly says. The directive explicitly rejects the neccessity of "artistic value", it must only be "original" in a fashion described above. Either Italy did not implement the directive correctly, or, if not, demarcation criteria are the same in Italy. There is only one choice. In any case the picture will be protected in any EU country that did implement the EU directive correctly, which will be the overwhelming majority, so this picture is not suitable for commons. --Rtc 17:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose Italy did not implemented the directive correctly, or maybe germany implemented it too strictly; I don't think here's the right place to discuss this topic. 212.63.102.232 19:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I get it, protection is uniform in the EU all right as far as the terms of the protection of works are concerned. In the spirit of the directives, it should be uniform in the definition of what a work actually is, too, but it isn't (yet). The member states still have leeway to determine the border themselves.
In fact, that's part of the problem with this exception and tag. An image considered not a work in Italy will still be treated as such in numerous countries. Other EU countries may regard the images as simple photographs but will protect them much longer than Italy. Further countries don't even know simple photographs. Fuzz, I say.
We could limit the exception to Italy and the US and to images taken before 1976. But that still leaves the dangerous vagueness of the Italian definition of what a simple photograph actually is. Effectively, we've got a double-fuzzy tag for internationally non-free content (except I and US) that is easily misused. --Wikipeder 12:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping

[edit]

I would like to point your attention to a third level of fuzziness:

Any photographer of an image that is PD according to Italian law but that is still protected in another EU country can go to court in this EU county and sue people for using the image in Italy.

It's a mess. Effectively, these images are free to be used by Italian law, but unfortunately not by the law of two dozen other EU countries that apply to images used in Italy, too, because of the EU's principle of non-discrimination. They are not really free content, not even in Italy. --Wikipeder 11:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. He can sue for the use in the country where he sues. But since commons is reachable from all EU countries, that's still a problem, since commons is not an italian local project. --Rtc 12:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Man, I have some court decisions to read, but my work is leaving me no time right now. We all agree that these images are PD in Italy. Just move all that images to it.wiki and stop whining. Please, DO NOT DELETE the images before moving them. --Jollyroger 11:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jollyroger: if you think that all the world should knee to the German's law I still think you are wrong, but you will win in the long term because we cannot spend 30% of our life on commons. As a last resort I wish to point out that there are other images that are on commons and cannot be used on german wiki (e.g. Image:Flag_of_Germany_1933.svg). Bye, user:paulatz 13:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And we (I mean all wikipedias) can just stop using this useless thing (I mean commons). Enough is enough... DracoRoboter 14:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not moving all the images on de.wiki? German is an official language in part of Italy, after all... Cruccone 20:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
de.wiki we'll be ok, en.wiki also, it.wiki (XXKZ.wiki also, and who cares about language) The point is: which damn law we have to use? If we chose e.g Germarn one I'll be happy but in that case if anybody say "in xxx-stan-land that photo is illegal" I can say "in Germany is ok so I don't give a damn". (my english is REALLY poor, sorry) DracoRoboter 09:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries

[edit]
  • Note: I have tried to follow the above debate, but its just too confusing for me to close this in good faith. Can the closing admin please provide a concise legal rationale for the decision. If its not possible to write a concise rationale then I urge that this is closed as keep, a delete in those circumstances would be inappropriate m:copyright paranoia.--Nilfanion 07:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I try to write a summary:

  • The whole thing is about the difference between simple photographs and photograpic works
  • The retention period for simple photographs is 20 years after publication, for photograpic works 70 years pma in Italy. As far is i can see this is not disputed. Other countries apply such a distinction as well, i.e. germany has 50 years after publication for simple photographs. This complies with international treaties.
  • Argumentation of one side (i.e. Rtc, Wikipeder) refers to a very strict interpretation of simple photographs taking into account that berne convention and EU directives are aimed to a high level of protection.
  • Argumentation of the other side (i.e. Makthorpe, Jollyroger) refers to the Italian law which defines a broader range of what is a simple photograph. See for example the evaluation of Lupo: For simple photographs, Italian law is quite generous: any image of persons, elements, facts, or aspects, of daily life is a "simple photograph". or the Analysis of Jollyrogers.

I hope i got it right in that short way.

Personally, i agree with the strict interpretation after which nearly all photographs are works. However, even when we accept the broader definition of Italian law, there are some negative implications. First of all we have to decide in every single case where the line is drawn between simple photographs and photograpic works. Italian law says that images of persons are simple photographs - ok, but is this true for all kinds of portraits? The portraits for passports are simple photographs as well as an artistic shot, i.e. a nude photograph? I don't believe that. There is for sure a distinction which does not depend on the motive but on the level of individuality. What i try to point out is that the template is the theory but in practice it is nearly useless unless we have a case law example. Second point is an aspect of international law. Since the rule of shorter term is forbidden inside the EU those photographs are evaluated under respective national laws. This results in protection of the pictures in EU countries which

  • have longer retention periods for simple photographs,
  • no distinction between simple photographs and works and/or
  • very strict limitations for simple photographs.

Germany for example has 50 years after publication for simple photographs but we also know due to case law that nearly all photographs are regarded as works.--Wiggum 08:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try a short summary, too: Basically, there were two levels of argument.

  1. The debate on the legal situation in Italy: One side argued the exception should be kept since simple photos were indeed PD in Italian law after 20 years, while the other side—advocating removal—agreed but claimed this had lost almost any substance due to EU harmonisation and the possibility of forum shopping.
  2. The debate on the usefulness of the exception on the Commons: The party advocating removal of the exception argued the line between simple photos and works was too vague and subjective to provide for a reliable criterion. They also argued that images considered simple by Italian law could only be used in Italy (and the US, if published before 1976), which did not justify keeping them on the internationally oriented Commons while risking misuse. The party arguing for keeping the exception did not uphold arguments on this political level.

Frankly, I think the argument is very much in favour of not keeping the exception. I think, however, since this is a political decision, we will need a clearer mandate. The fact that heaps of users appear to have blindly followed a call to defend Italy against "the bloody Krauts" may be peculiar but should not lead us to disregard their opposition. --Wikipeder 10:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC) (mistakable word removed --Wikipeder 13:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

"Fascist-style": very nice, spectacular, have you ever thought to work as a diplomat? I simply can't stand this: I don't care at all if PD-Italy images will be deleted from Commons (since I do believe that Commons is an excellent idea but an horribly organized project), but to be referred as a fascist community is so offensive. It reminds me a period in which the freedom of sharing images wasn't even thinkable. Your post could be so convincing, it's a shame that now seems to me just stupid. Very stupid. Faithfully, Felyx 13:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Felyx, this is a misunderstanding. The call on the Italian WP was fashioned as a Mussolini speach as a joke, as you can see from the linked page: "NOI SIAMO ITALIANI. LA LEGGE E' LA NOSTRA. QUEL MATERIALE E' REGOLATO DALLA NOSTRA LEGGE. Non ci serve un tedesco per sapere cosa dice il nostro codice. Resistiamo! Agiamo! Combattiamo fino alla vittoria! Vincere, e vinceremo!"
You may find this disgraceful, but it's obviously been meant as a joke. Emotions ran high. Actually, I thought it was funny.
That's the trouble with page-long debates: Nobody actually reads them. I edited my above post so we can come back at discussing the real issue. --Wikipeder 13:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fascist-style? What the fuck.. please? --Bouncey2k 14:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
call a surgical team and please let's them install in you a little of sense of humor. I think i will write a short faq on "why we won't use commons"DracoRoboter 14:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering: would you find it funny, if I call you "nazist"?
Please, don't make fun with a tremendous period of our history and use more appropriate words. -- Sannita 17:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on, Jollyroger did not really call anybody a fascist. He pretended to be some sort of Mussolini on 10/06/1940 addressing the fascist masses. Okay, right, he thus pretended the Italian users were the fascist masses, but that was a joke, after all. --Wikipeder 20:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No insults, I'm not that kind of people. Maybe I didn't made clear my thought.
You used the term "fascist-style" which, in Italy, is perceived as a grevious offence. We are actually not so proud of that 20-years-period.
Fact is, Jollyroger was kidding, when he wrote what he wrote on the it.wiki Village Pump. He quite always use to exaggerate things for make fun, and so he did that time too. That's maybe the misunderstanding that made us exploit an useless flame on Commons.
Let's make it out with my statement now. It was an unsuccesful try to make you understand that is better not to use such words, nor with us nor with anyone. We're a bit tired of being called "pizza", "mandolino", "spaghetti", "mafia" and so on. "Fascist" was the classical drop that classically broke the classical pot.
So, the real meaning of my statement is: If I call you "nazist", you'll surely be pissed off. So, why can't we be pissed off if an Italian is called "fascist"?
Hope I made it clear this time. >:-) -- Sannita 09:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much ado about nothing...
Did anyone read Combattiamo fino alla vittoria! Vincere, e vinceremo! Dovessimo farlo anche solo alla fine del secondo tempo supplementare.?
Translation: Fight to victory! We have to win, and we will win! Even if only at the end of the second extra time . Irony seems quite explicit in my joke. Should I add 2-0 Grosso, Del Piero? I can say everyone on it.wiki knows my "style", if someone misunderstood... well, his problem.
I had to leave the discussion due to a RL work trip: you ignored our points and went on deleting. Ok, your choice. Move the damn images on it.wiki and C YA.
--Jollyroger 12:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

[edit]

PD-Italy will be deleted as PD-Italy is imcompatible with the copyright policy of Wikimedia Commons that requires freely licensed images only. A summary of the reasons:

  • EU copyright: 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.
  • US copyright: 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.
  • Artistic vs. simple images: 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. This distinction is subject to different standards and adjudgements by different courts (even within the same nation) and that for in general not a useful criteria in Commons. Furthermore most of the images tagged with PD-Italy are even artistic according to the old italian laws (like covers of magazines and books, which thus never were public domain in Italy). So all images tagged with it need to be reviewed and only a very narrow fraction can be considered not artistic according to current italian laws.

The template text will be replaced by call of the Template:No license template with the date of today. Thus Commons admins will start deleting the obvious cases and give local communities yet another one week chance determining the right license of a file at the unknown cases. However Commons admins urge everybody to act wisely and not to be folish and applying nonsense replacement license tags to these images. We have a static list of all affected files of PD-Italy, so any folish action will directly lead into deletion. Arnomane 17:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it.wiki decision discussions
[edit]
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.

Template:PD-Italy

[edit]

Other discussions for reference:

I'm nominating this template and all of the images (~360) in its category, because I think we need to have clarity regarding the status of PD-Italy. In essence, in 2006 it was decided that such images are no longer free in Italy, and thus not on Commons: see above. However, in 2010, there was discussion on the village pump, and the editors decided to undelete it: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2010/10#PD-Italy restoration request. Really, this should have gone through undeletion requests, not through the village pump where there aren't very many eyes and so consensus is hard to gauge.

As such, we ought to decide here what to do with these images once and for all (or, if we change our mind in the future, at least go through the proper process at Commons:Undeletion requests or Commons:Deletion requests). Our discussion should center around the following:

  • What is the current legal copyright status of 20 year old images in Italy according to the Italian government and courts and/or US government and courts? (Wikimedia's servers being housed in the US)

It should not center around any of the following:

  • What someone's interpretation of Italy's law is.
  • What someone's interpretation of the EU law is.
  • What other countries in the EU think of Italy's laws.
  • Statements about how the images are valuable (w:WP:ILIKEIT) versus their copyright status.
  • Votes (w:WP:JUSTAVOTE, w:WP:PERNOM)
  • Statements for "what about other countries that we have?" (w:WP:WAX) unless it explains the wider picture of why the images are legally free.

Keep in mind we are trying to figure out if these images really are free, not if we think they're free or even if they ought to be free.

I am currently  Neutral. I am nominating the template and images here for discussion so we can figure out the copyright status (I clarify this before the predictable cavalcade of editors comes along and states that I hate free images and want to destroy information). Nevertheless, per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, we should only keep this template if it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that is free. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the more recent discussions where this was restored, after some consideration, in discussions both on en-wiki and here. The 2006 discussions were badly incorrect in my opinion; the 20-year term for such photos is still quite plainly in Italian law -- that is impossible to dispute -- and therefore still relevant there. It's in Article 92; that explains the legal status in black and white -- not sure why it's remotely controversial. The language concerning which images qualify also did not change. The 2006 Commons decision basically decided to ignore all that from what I could see. We also have always accepted templates from other EU countries which also have a shorter term for simpler images -- and Italy defines them better than anyone, really. I really can't understand why this would be brought up again, to be honest... it went through a fair amount of discussion on the undeletion, both here and en-wiki, and really the reasons for deletion in the first place were pretty misplaced as they used arguments from a German court decision (which has zero binding legal effect in Italy). I disagree that the Village Pump doesn't have "eyes", either; that was a perfectly legitimate undeletion.  Keep Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there was an undeletion request, it really should have gone at Commons:Undeletion requests. I am bringing it up here because of Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 31#Template:PD-Italy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Really" - that is really rigid. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It could have, but didn't. There are times when things get discussed on the Village Pump to have a wider audience than just the undeletion page. I don't see how that makes it illegitimate (even when they are, often times people get confused when they see DRs ending in deletion where the file exists, because there is often no link to the undeletion discussion -- no different here, but that was fixed recently by a section on the template's talk page). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not rigid at all, because it leaves the status of the images as still uncertain (the community discussion was much smaller) and thus I am unsure if I can delete the images on English Wikipedia as a result. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Village Pump discussions tend to be the most visible, not least. En-wiki also went through their own process (you linked to it), and restored their version of the template before we did, so of course they consider it valid, regardless of what Commons does. I'd keep with the strict 1976 line (URAA date minus the 20 years) for images hosted there, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep - per Carl Lindberg; the EU directive explicitly leaves it to the member states to have separate legislation for simple photography. "Member States may provide for the protection of other photographs." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Bringing up older links, this court case got into the area, and does illustrate some of the limits of the "simple photo" thing (artistic landscape photos were considered photographic works and thus have a full 70 pma term). The fact that the author was a known, artistic photographer also seems to have been material to the ruling. The ruling also mentions a 10.5.91 court of cassation case, No. 5237, which apparently also involved that section of the law -- it may be interesting to find the text of that case. There may also have been some relevant content posted at Commons:When to use the PD-Italy tag, which was deleted as "nonsense" but may have just been by a non-native English speaker (I never saw the content, so I'm not sure). Anyways, if the tag is going to be brought up again with a new DR, there really should be a reason as to why we should ignore sections of Italian law that plainly exist (and are treated as valid by their judges). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep the matter was clear even in 2006, and the template was deleted after a discussion based on unconsistent ground. The discussion at the Village Pump in 2008 simply fixed the 2006's error. The Italian law is clear: a non-artistic image is automatically in public domain since the 1st January of the 20th year following the year of first publishing in Italy, provided that it was produced in Italy and published in Italy first. This applies worldwide. Thus are currently in PD all the non-artistic photos first published in Italy from 31 December 1991 backward. The case of 70 pma applies for "artistic photos" (i.e. artistic landscapes, a model posing for the photographer, artistic effects and so on); photographing a footballer kicking on goal is not considered "artistic photo" by Italian law, but just a "simple aspect of everyday's life". -- Blackcat (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep but strogly use only for image of people and/or acidents. licence tag only for acidents and people it SOOO userfuls for wikipedia, becausue people and accidents are "unrepetable". (that mean, it no problem take photo of italian car today, but it sooooo problem take photo of Mussolini in today.) --Teplice, Ústecko (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I think that for this we should also wait the URAA files decision. If we delete them here on Commons, the disclaimer on en.wiki (and it.wiki too) should be updated with an invite to do not move photos published after 1976.--Trixt (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
En-wiki shouldn't be hosting such files either, since they follow U.S. rules even more then we do (and do not necessarily take into account the law in the country of origin). As long as the Italian photos were created before 1976 and published without a copyright notice before March 1, 1989, then we can host them. If they were created 1976 or later, the U.S. copyright would have been restored, and if they were published with a copyright notice (or were first published 1989 or later) the U.S. copyright was never lost in the first place and didn't need restoration, and they would also still be copyrighted in the U.S. So, the disclaimer probably should be removed (though they may not want to entrust Commons with such photos, given the history of this template and the re-discussions which seem to take place ;-) ). Maybe having this DR will end the discussions, but en-wiki may want to wait a while to be sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why somebody put at template deletion request? i see some admin: "Yeah, look deletion request! I do not read discusion, a just delete template for safety!" Take DL off and stop nominating PD Italy images to deletion. Why you do this today? --Teplice, Ústecko (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not going to bother reading the reasons for the deletion request, then I don't see any reason to bother responding to your request. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-Italy&oldid=180550634"