Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory

Archives 1

Palestinian territories

Has anyone any idea about the copyright rules for the Palestinian territories? Huldra (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I think Israel left existing laws in place when they occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, so the Copyright Ordinance 1924, based on the UK Copyright Act 1911, would still apply. Just a personal opinion... Aymatth2 (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Huldra (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but I'm afraid it won't be so simple. As for „West Bank“, the territories were annexed by Jordan in 1948–1967, whose legal system was based on French Civil Law as well as Islamic Shari’a law and whose intellectual property laws were based solely on traditional Ottoman law. (Prof. Mohammad Issa Mehawesh's opinion, not mine). Had Israel really left existing laws as you say, this should be the status until now. On the other hand, it is possible that Israel reinstalled the British copyright law, since the Jordanian annexation hasn't been recognized, and that's the status now. And it's also possible that Israel applies the Israeli copyright law (the Copyright Act from 2007 and the international treaties) on the territories under Israeli civilian administration. I don't even try a guess about what's the status on the territories under Palestinian civil administration(s).--Shlomo (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

My thinking is that neither the PLO nor Israel recognise the Jordanian annexation, Israel would not implement Israeli laws since that could be taken to imply annexation, so the pre-1948 laws would remain. This source gives more information. I imagine no two lawyers would agree. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

So far, we should just redirect Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Palestinian territories to Israel subpage, rather than creating that from scratch, right? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer a separate subpage, since the Palestinian territories are not part of Israel. A subpage could provide the background and different views on the subject, with sources, which might be useful. There is a risk it would become a bit of a battlefield. I could make a start if there is agreement here. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. Please go ahead. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Someone hijacked my userid and started Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Palestinian territories. It should be at least partly protected. I take no responsibility for the accuracy or utility of any statements in this version. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Thanks for starting it. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

TOO China

Just making a note here. The Gang Heng logo case added by User:Wcam recently shows that TOO can be extremely low in China. I'd say it's as low as the United Kingdom, if not lower. Some reference materials: [1][2] coloured version.--Roy17 (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Moral rights

I think it should be important to mention the moral rights, which apply in most European countries and probably elsewhere. Especially for those from other legal traditions, they may be surprising (and also for some Europeans who have their copyright knowledge from here). It is e.g. allowed to sue for lack of attribution even if one has licensed one's work under CC-zero (at least in Finland, for "works", not photos – one cannot waive those rights by a general statement). --LPfi (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

UK Freedom of panorama

Hi I have a problem with this paragraph at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Freedom_of_panorama:

Note that under UK law, "works of artistic craftsmanship" are defined separately from "graphic works". Graphic works are defined in Section 4 as any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work. The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works - such as a mural or poster - even if they are permanently located in a public place. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder.

This isn't backed up by the law. "Works of artistic craftsmanship" are explicitly not defined separately from "graphic works" ... instead, section 4 says:

In this Part "artistic work" means— (a)a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality, (b)a work of architecture being a building or a model for a building, or (c)a work of artistic craftsmanship.

Thus it seems clear that actually "Works of artistic craftsmanship" and "graphic works" are both "artistic works". Section 62 is entitled "Representation of certain artistic works on public display" and thus refers to both "Works of artistic craftsmanship" and "graphic works", as well as "works of architecture" implicitly

I'd therefore like to change the paragraph in question to:

Note that under UK law, “artistic works” are defined as "a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality" or "a work of architecture being a building or a model for a building" or "a work of artistic craftsmanship". Graphic works are defined in Section 4 as "(a) any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan or (b) any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work; “photograph” means a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image may by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film; “sculpture” includes a cast or model made for purposes of sculpture. The freedoms provided by Section 62 apply to all of these. This means all artistic works on public display can be photographed and the photographs can be uploaded to commons.

This would then mean editing the rest of section as well. I thought I'd check in here before doing so... Mujinga (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mujinga: I think this update would be incorrect. I agree that in the terms of the Act a graphic work is also an artistic work. However, section 62 doesn't apply to all artistic works, only to buildings, sculptures, models for buildings, and works of artistic craftsmanship. These four terms precisely map to four of the terms in section 4(1):

In this Part "artistic work" means—

(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality,

(b) a work of architecture being a building or a model for a building, or

(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship.

So graphic works, photographs, and collages are artistic works that are not covered by section 62. --bjh21 (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah thanks a lot for the explanation, I just wasn't reading it that way at all. I've had to read the relevant sections again a few times and I think you are correct. From discussion here I've also read this which backs up what you are saying. Thanks again! Mujinga (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)