Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Russia

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

COM:TOO Russia looks like a lot of less related topics[edit]

There's no criteria that how in general Russian logos are copyrighted, only says "hey, automated camera images are public domain" and "hey, I know that was made very simply but it's indeed copyrighted". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no link to the resolution. --AVRS (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are Russian signatures copyrighted or not?[edit]

@A.Savin, Андрей Романенко, Butko, EugeneZelenko, George Chernilevsky, Maxim, Putnik, Rubin16, Well-Informed Optimist, and Ymblanter: IIRC some recent signature-related deletion requests are about the situation in Russia, do we have informations on this topic? Note that the Russian here means signatures within the territory of Russia, not only "in Russian language" (but also in Bashkir, Buryat, Chechen, Chuvash, Komi, Oirat, Ossetic, Tatar, Tuvan, Udmurt, Yakut...) Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Spade может ты что-то о практике знаешь? rubin16 (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not know direct court practice about signatures in copyright-specific contex.
Recently we had discussed this question on w:ru:Википедия:Форум/Архив/Авторское_право.
In my opinion, based on civil legislation in whole and regulation for documents circulation, signature is name handwritten by person - it is technical tool for authenticity verification, and in such contex it is uncoprtightable - it is not act of creativity and not work of science, literature, or art. Alex Spade (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unpublished works[edit]

What are the rules around unpublished works, e.g., historical/archival images from the 1920 that were never published? Would be helpful for this page to address these. czar 21:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea[edit]

Photos, that are made in Crimea must be legal by Ukranian, not Russial law, correct? ·Carn 13:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the last nine years we tend to require that it should be legal in both, but may be it is time to reconsider. (We are talking about post-1954 photos, before that issues are obviously complicated). Ymblanter (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plz, specify your question. Are you asking about Public Domain, Freedom of Panorama, or both? Alex Spade (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Formally they are subject to the Ukrainian laws, but in practice locals will definitely deal with the Russian ones. In fact, it entirely depends on how far Wikipedia would be willing to go to keep these images. Alexander Davronov (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NoFoP should be amended[edit]

Hi. NoFoP rule should be amended due to vague court practices. In fact, acccording to papers (in Russian) I've seen the law courts routinely refuse to accept complaints over images posted on the internet unless the plaintiff can prove his authorship (rights over the work in question) and (often) commercial use. (see [1]). Otherwise complaints are returned to plaintiff without satisfacion.

Based on NoFoP at least two images were challenged to be removed:

--Alexander Davronov (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not important whether any precations are taken or not cause rulling regime in Russia ain't gonna honor the law. It can even ban entire wikipedia at its will. Putin doesn't like anything he can't control. On the other hand, there is no basis for this NoFoP-in-Russia policy. It's virtually unsubstantiated by any sources. You can't cite one single article from Civilian Code cause Court Proceedings may drastically differ. They also have to follow Civil Proceedings of the Court, which regulate how copyright over works may be assessed. I think Commons approach is mostly arbitrary in this case and just follows weird precations. 5.23.107.150 13:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is unimportant, "who is Mr. Putin" or if Wikipedia will be blocked in Russia or will not. Mention judicial proceedings is not one. The Commons and Wikipedia do not take Russian or other national civil procedure legislation (ГПК РФ) into account. Alex Spade (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in 2014, copyright legislation in Russia was significantly changed. In accordance with Article 1276 of the Civil Code of Russia, images of works of art, buildings, etc. may be freely published if they are located "in a place open to the public or visible from that place." [2] A place open to free visits should be understood as a place where any person can be: exhibitions, clubs, discos, museums, parks, squares, metro, train station, street areas, etc. (Definitions of the Perm Regional Court dated July 29, 2013 in case No. 33-7169, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 13, 2012 No. 64-APG12-14).

In 2019-2021, a series of processes took place during which the sculptor demanded compensation from the company that produced a set of postcards, one of which depicted a monument of his work located in Yekaterinburg. As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and returned the case to the court of first instance, which rejected the sculptor’s claim, explaining that the sculpture is located in a publicly accessible place and is depicted only in one of the open sets, that is, it is not the main object of the work. [3] RG72 (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The updated article 1276 is included in "Freedom of panorama" section of page. What is your main point? Alex Spade (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to draw attention to the fact that law enforcement practice has recently appeared - thanks to the court decisions that I wrote about. They are considered precedents; lawyers refer to them when considering similar cases. Therefore, we can no longer talk about the “lack of judicial practice” as it was before. ̴̴RG72 (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • These cases are known, there are not any significant change in them. The 1st case is just confirmation of definition for places open for free attendance; the 2nd case is very specific one - it is about photo of the specific sculpture in the specific park and in the specific circumstances - it is interesting, but it can not be generalize. Alex Spade (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @RG72 the court ruling is useless for Commons. In fact, it just reinforces the limits for artists of public monuments in terms of depiction of a whole scenery and not only the monument (Russian de minimis for public spaces). Since you mentioned "the sculpture is located in a publicly accessible place and is depicted only in one of the open sets, that is, it is not the main object of the work," it just reinforces "not the main subject" rule that must be followed by commercial re-users as well as users in the new media/IT fields (where commercial uses are unavoidable). So, no, the situation hasn't changed. You may want to add this important court decision on the COM:FOP Russia page yourself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I got some free time today (despite hectic college schedule here in a Philippine school), I'll try to add that case you mentioned. Feel free to make corrections if needed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Russia&oldid=874776511"