Template talk:PD-AR-Photo

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

How the photographs are registered in Argentina[edit]

"The copyright of this photography registered in Argentina...". Does that mean that photographs in Argentina are registered somewhere? Is there a register of millions of photos in Buenos Aires? Or is it only a mistranslation? Thuresson 11:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If a magazine, book or any publication has an image, then the registration of that publication is also a registration of the image. Mariano 12:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the law says 20 years. What modification extends it to 25 years? --E2m 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of other material than photos[edit]

Only the copyright of photos expires after 25 years or the copyright of all copyrighted material (newspapers, books, etc.)? Can I upload a scan of a book published in Argentina more than 25 years ago or not? --ALE! 10:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone comment on that? --ALE! 07:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't come here often.

  • The copyright for texts is of 30 years after the death of the writer (article 5)
  • The copyright for photographies is of 20 years after the first publication (artice 34), though some people claim its 25 years
  • Cinematographic work: 30 years since first reproduced.
  • Letters: 20 years after the death of the author (no reference to the receiver)

All from wikisource:es:Ley 11.723 de propiedad intelectual.

Cheers, Mariano 09:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This information is outdated. The current version of the law with its modification after its first publication can be found here: http://infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/40000-44999/42755/texact.htm
photos: 20 years after first publication (not 25!, I changed the template)
cinematografic works: 50 years after the death of the last living person named in Article 20: script writer, producer, director
other works: 70 years after the year following the year of the death of the author (year of death+1+70, see Article 5 of the law)
--ALE! 21:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20 o 25 años?[edit]

Si bien la Ley dice que son 20 años, al firmar Argentina el Convenio de Berna, el tiempo pasa a ser de 25 años, que es el mínimo que fija dicho convenio. Sanbec ✉ 10:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modificaciónes de la plantilla[edit]

El artículo 34, del que estamos hablando, no requiere que se cite al autor como dice esta plantilla. Barcex 05:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esta plantilla tiene que decir que se debe especificar claramente la fuente donde la foto fue publicada por primera vez; que la foto sea blanco y negro o antigua no indica que tenga mas de 25 años de publicada. ¿Alguien lo puede redactar?, no soy muy bueno en eso. Saludos... --Martin Rizzo 13:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eso puede ir como una aclaración, a nivel de Commons lo único que necesitamos es el origen de la foto, es decir, cuándo y donde fue publicada, y si fue publicada hace más de 25 años, está en el dominio público independientemente de su autor. Se puede poner, claro, una aclaración que lo remarque, pero no es requisito citar al autor sino a la fecha y lugar donde se publicó. A eso es lo que llamamos "source" normalmente en commons. Barcex 16:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agregué la advertencia. Barcex 16:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigue faltando aclarar que es obligatorio indicar la fecha y fuente de la publicación, el texto actual dice ".. o debe darse clara evidencia de que la imagen fue tomada hace más de 25 años." lo cuál es erroneo ya que con solo dar la evidencia de que la foto es antigua no se cumple con la licencia. Saludos... --Martin Rizzo 17:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC) PD:no es necesario que sea la fecha de la primer publicación, con cualquier publicación mayor a 25 años alcanzaría'.[reply]

Template amended & some confussion / Plantilla modificada, y algunas confusiones[edit]

I've just amended the template to reflect the actual legal status of Argentinian photos. A double condition must hold:

  • Photo should have been taken at least 25 years before it is uploaded to commons (blanket Berne Convention's Article 7 (4) minimum protection); AND,
  • Photo should have been published in Argentina at least 20 years before it is uploaded to commons (Argentine law standard protection for photographic works, Law 11723 as amended, article 34)

Date and source of publication are needed to assess compliance of both conditions, since if it was published at least 25 years ago it is obvious it was taken not later than that date :) That leaves us on the "safe side". Status of unpublished photographs taken more than 25 years ago is unclear in Argentinian law and cas law; 25 years' milestone could be used bona fide. Cinabrium

He modificado la plantilla para reflejar el estatus jurídico real de las fotos argentinas. Debe cumplirse una condición doble:

  • La foto debe haber sido tomada al menos 25 años antes de ser subida a commons (protección mínima genérica otorgada por el Artículo 7 (4) del Convenio de Berna); Y
  • La foto debe haber sido publicada en la Argentina al menos 20 años antes de ser subida a commons (protección estándar argentina para obras fotográficas, Ley 11723 Art. 34).

Se requiere hacer notar fecha y medio de publicación para verificar el cumplimiento de ambas condiciones, puesto que si fue publicada hace más de 25 años, es obvio que fue tomada no más allá de esa fecha :) Esto nos deja "del lado seguro". El estatus de las fotos no publicadas tomadas hace más de 25 años no está claro en la legislación ni en la jurisprudencia argentinas; el hito de los 25 años podría usarse por pirncipio de buena fe.. Cinabrium 16:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tal como quedó ahora, la fecha que se pide no es prueba de que la foto fue publicada hace más de 20 años y así se está al amparo del art. 34. La foto bien puede tener más de 25 años y haber sido publicada ayer. O el artículo está escrito en sánscrito, o yo leo que pide 20 años desde la primera vez que se publicó. Barcex 23:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fotos extranjeras en publicaciones argentinas[edit]

Qué sucede si hace 30 años una publicación argentina compró los derechos de una foto en el exterior? la foto pasa a ser de público dominio sin tener en cuenta la reglamentación de otros paises? o por el contrario es obligatorio para esta licencia que las fotos hayan sido tomadas en territorio argentino?. gracias. --Martin Rizzo 17:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go on with this talk in Spanish (if anyone needs an English translation, please ask and I'll be glad to provide one up to the limits of my poor English legalese)
En realidad, Martín, depende de los derechos que haya comprado. Si compró los derechos exclusivos, hubo transferencia de copyright y el titular de los derechos patrimoniales de autor sería ahora la pulicación en cuestión, urbi et orbi. Ahora, si la publicación sólo adquirió derechos de reproducción, se plantea uno de los tantos casos de multiplicidad de derecho aplicable en el derecho de autor (que son muy comunes), lo que nos lleva a tres situaciones posibles:
  • Si existe un tratado entre el país de origen de la foto (o del derechohabiente original) y la Argentina que prevea la protección recíproca por los plazos observados en los países de origen, la imagen seguiría estando protegida. Digo seguiría, porque será materia jurisprudencial el determinarlo, a la luz del tratado. Puesto que no se trata de un tratado de derechos humanos, no tiene preminencia sobre la ley local conforme a la constitución argentina, sino que está en un plano de igualdad. Es el caso más difícil, e ignoro si hay tratados como el que ejemplifico (cláusulas por el estilo suelen estar incoporadas a los "acuerdos embudo" como el ALCA) (creo que no necesito explicar la "ley del embudo" ;))
  • De lo contrario, hay una duplicidad:
    • La imagen está en el dominio público en la Argentina. Su publicación en cualquier medio local es legítima.
    • La imagen puede estar aún protegida en otro/s país/es; por lo tanto, su publicación en ellos sin el correspondiente permiso del titular de los derechos de autor es ilegal.
Para los fines de wikipedia, sólo es posible subir fotos tomadas en Argentina cuyos derechos de autor originales hayan pertenecido a personas físicas o jurídicas argentinas (otra vez, para estar del lado seguro, porque la publicación se produce en otro país). Cinabrium 01:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More confusion[edit]

It seems that many believe that because something was published in Argentina, that the Berne Convention extends, worldwide, any copyright expiration of Argentina. This is understandable, but this isn't how the related Berne Convention article reads. The extension only applies to works where protection is claimed in Argentina and where Argentina is the "country of origin."

Article 7, Paragraph 8:

  • (8) In any case, the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed; however, unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work.
  • (8) En todos los casos, el plazo de protección será el establecido por la ley del país en el que la protección se reclame; sin embargo, a menos que la legislación de este país no disponga otra cosa, la duración no excederá del plazo fijado en el país de origen de la obra.

For example, if a photograph that originated in the United States was published in a magazine in Argentina in 1983, the Berne convention does not extend worldwide public domain status to that image in 2008. The US copyright still protects the photograph in the US and the Berne convention extends that protection worldwide.

This should probably be fixed in all related PD-xx templates and all related copyright documentation. —Danorton (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for autotranslation[edit]

{{editprotected}} Hey, could someone please autotranslate this template? I've come across this template today and felt like autotranslating it. Just replace the page content with {{autotranslate|base=PD-AR-Photo}} {{{category|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|File|[[Category:PD-AR-Photo|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}} <noinclude>{{InCat|PD-AR-Photo}} {{documentation}} followed by the categorization of the template. Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done — Mike.lifeguard 18:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain in US[edit]

We should change This image is in the public domain because [...] into This image is in the public domain in Argentina because [...]. Some photos using this template are indeed not in the public domain in the U.S. because they were not in the public domain in Argentina on the URAA date. The template thus needs to be accompanied by another template explaining why the photo is in the public domain in the US (could be {{PD-1996}} or {{PD-URAA-Simul}} for example). Nillerdk (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Thumb rule should be: anything published after 1970 is not in PD in US, right? We should add a line similar to:
  • A Argentine work that is in the public domain in Argentina according to these rules is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Argentina before January 1, 1996, e.g. if it was created before January 1, 1971.
or
  • Images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons must also be in the public domain in the United States. A Argentine work that is in the public domain in Argentina is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Argentina in 1996, e.g. if a photo was created before January 1, 1971 and no copyright was registered in the U.S. (This is the effect of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.)
Gunnex (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. I like the 2nd for a more thorough explanation. Maybe also wikilink "must also be in the public domain in the United States" to Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_US_and_non-US_copyright_law? Mike Linksvayer (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support the 2nd wording.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd word it differently:
  • Images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons must be in the public domain both in their country of origin and in the United States. An Argentine work that was already in the public domain in Argentina on January 1, 1996 (e.g., any photo created in Argentina before January 1, 1971) with no copyright registered in the U.S. is definitely in the public domain in the U.S. (This is the effect of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.) Some Argentine photos later than that date may be in the public domain in the U.S., but require a separate PD tag explaining why.
- Jmabel ! talk 22:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Why is the limit date for Argentine photographs January 1, 1971, while for Italian photographs ({{PD-Italy}}) the limit date is January 1, 1976? Lugamo94 (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugamo94: 25 year expiry vs. 20 year expiry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs)
@Jmabel: Both countries have a copyright length for photographs of 20 years (Law 11.723, art. 34). The 25 year term in the template comes seems to come from the Berne Convention, which does impose that minimum term. The thing is that Italy also signed that treaty. Hence my question over the double standards. --Lugamo94 (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugamo94: then the template for Italy may need amending. I generally try to stay away from Italian copyright law which, in my experience, is a singular mess. - Jmabel ! talk 00:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel OK, thanks. Lugamo94 (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out: this is necromancing a very old discussion. Pinging @Nillerdk, Gunnex, Mike Linksvayer who discussed this 8 years ago; also Pinging @Jeff G. who commented recently. - Jmabel ! talk 22:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: This came up for me when I was looking into File:José Luis Cabezas.png.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: what do you think of my proposed wording? Deals with a couple of solecisms in the English, and als it is more specifically positive (talks about what is in the public domain, rather than what isn't). - Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Yours is better.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like Jmabel's except for the work definitely; renewal (and registration) is only required for works first published in the United States in 1963 and before (see: {{PD-US-not-renewed}} and COM:HIRTLE). There's a rare chance that a photograph in 1970 (for example) could have been published in Argentina, and within 30 days also in the United States, and published in the United States with a valid copyright notice. In that case, we'd have an unexpired U.S. copyright, even though the Argentine copyright was expired on the URAA date. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: I assume "work" => "word".
So you are covering the case where it was published in 1970 with notice but without registration? Yes, you are right. So let me try again:
Images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons must be in the public domain both in their country of origin and in the United States. An Argentine work that was already in the public domain in Argentina on January 1, 1996 (e.g., any photo created in Argentina before January 1, 1971) with no copyright registered in the U.S. and was not published in the U.S. with a copyright notice in the first 30 days after its initial Argentine publication is definitely in the public domain in the U.S. (This is the effect of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.) Some Argentine photos later than that date may be in the public domain in the U.S., but require a separate PD tag explaining why.
Is there any case of being registered in the U.S. without being published in the U.S.? If there is, we'd also need to cover that. - Jmabel ! talk 20:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel ! talk 20:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are these the threatened photos?[edit]

Are these the photos with this template and thus in Category:PD-AR-Photo that would be made retroactively subject to copyright by bill discussed in [1][2][3]? It appears to me the answer is probably yes, judging by the text of Template:PD-AR-Photo which states 25 and 20 years from creation and publication, the number of years mentioned in the blog posts about extension to life+70. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated link[edit]

The link for the Law has changed, it should be replaced by this: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/40000-44999/42755/texact.htm - Fma12 (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:PD-AR-Photo&oldid=824911418"