Commons:Deletion requests/Photographs using Template:PD-CzechGov

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.

Photographs using Template:PD-CzechGov

There is ongoing dispute on my talkpage, therefore I excuse my hasty action of tagging files with no permission and start a regular deletion request.

Reason

The case looks absolutely clear to me: The Czech copyright contains a copyright exemption for "official works", the reasons are written in Template:PD-CzechGov. This exemption was installed, like in most other countries, to allow free use of official works as they are of public interest. A copyright restriction on laws would hamper the use of the law and make it impossible to write contracts e.g., a copyright restriction on a draft of an official document would hamper the democratic process.

The Czech Copyright Act, Law No. 121/2000, Article 3, Section a, in summary only says, that authors of creative works not gain copyright for official works that are of public interest. This is a strong intrusion in the authors rights and it is only acceptable in cases where an document is of public interest, see also http://www.nkp.cz/o_knihovnach/AutZak/Duv.htm (Zvláštní část, § 3). The public interest in photographs of events and as I assume also official portraits of politicians and even presidents is not strong enough to override the authors copyright and expropriate the copyright holder (with a compensation). The construction of this copyright exemption is rather similar to many other EU countries like France, Germany, Spain.

→ Jump to discussion

Files

The template PD-CzechGov is used on various photographs, the prior tagging with no permission will be changed to deletion request. See Category:PD Czech official. Besides that this images are not covered by the license in my opinion, many of this images are fundamentally unsourced.

Discussions

There was discussion on my talkpage, here, and two postings here. Invitation was posted on Commons talk:Licensing - however my talkpage is not the place to find a consensus, therefore the deletion request is required.

Supporting views so far

I was pointed to w:cs:Wikipedie diskuse:WikiProjekt Autorské právo/Díla vyjmutá z autorskoprávní ochrany. The talk there was about one official government page. The answer is, as far as I understand: Photographs are not covered by that licensing because the public interest is not strong enough. Furthermore this images are created on the cost of the government, but also this is no reason for declaring them as parts of the public domain. The question in the first posting on my talkpage was about "senate publications", User:Beren explained, that senate publications are regulated by law and that Images on senate website are not senate publications according to the law.

Opposing views so far

The consent of opposing views is, that government imagery is of public interest. Especially presidential portraits are described as of large public interest.

--Martin H. (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Comment I think situation should be resolved in way as with Polish and Russian presidential sites photos. Websites gave explicit permission to use images under {{GFDL}} and {{CC-BY-SA}}. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete I must agree with Martin H. that these photographs are nothing meant to be public interest. Really bad examples of using PD-CzechGov are photos of czech parliament interiers and foreign politicians and other visitors, there is no way of using this licence because it is not anything where could be 121/2000 Sb. § 3 applied and goverment institutions do not release it explicitly. Same goes for photo of Jan Švejnar. I do not agree that images in newspaper could be licensed as PD-CzechGov as well.
  Photos of active politicians is another cup of tea but still ... Unlike the American law where many photographic goverment works are automatically PD there is nothing similar in the Czech law. If we assume that photos of politicians are in public interest it would mean, that every photo of politician would be PD-CzechGov, which is a quite imposible. There is a problem that public interest is not defined but in this case its interpretation is too vague and too risky for Commons as free repository to asume PD without explicit assurance. --Reaperman (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment In these discussions we end up talking about the rights and wrongs of a situation. But all we're trying to do is protect users of Commons image from legal consequences. What matters is how courts interpret a law, not how we would have it interpreted. Does anyone know of any relevant case law. --Simonxag (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment OTRS received an e-mail stating that File:Antonin Zapotocky.jpg and File:Antonín Novotný.jpg are available under the GFDL. Harej (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Both images are purely sourced, I assume the OTRS permission comes from a good source, maybe a press office of the presidency. --Martin H. (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete (unless individually cleared, such as Antonin Zapotocky.jpg above). The explanation by Martin H. agrees with my understanding of the law (I am not a lawyer, though). Notice that many of the photos (see e.g. File:PavelSvoboda.jpg → [1]) even carry an explicit copyright notice on the original government web site, which means that they are not public domain according to the government's own understanding of the law either. EmilJ (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I also extended the deletion request to File:Atentát na Heydricha - zvláštní vydání.gif. That one's even worse—it's not a government publication at all, it comes from a private newspaper. EmilJ (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This special issue of newspaper "Polední list" contains only two texts: the first is official appeal of the SS and Police chief, the second is an official edict of the reichsprotector. Only the caption of "Polední list" top left can be controversial. I believe, this issue of Polední List have official character as a whole.--ŠJů (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The text of Frank's statement as such is presumably OK. Its graphic representation in the paper, especially the newspaper logo, is not. At the very least, the image should be cropped to only show the official text. EmilJ (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In order not to make things more complicated than necessary, I cropped the image to avoid anything pertaining to the newspaper, and I retracted the deletion request. EmilJ (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment The Czech law says: "Ochrana podle práva autorského se nevztahuje na (...) a) úřední dílo, jímž je právní předpis, rozhodnutí, veřejná listina, veřejně přístupný rejstřík a sbírka jeho listin, jakož i úřední návrh úředního díla a jiná přípravná úřední dokumentace, včetně úředního překladu takového díla, sněmovní a senátní publikace, pamětní knihy obecní (obecní kroniky), státní symbol a symbol jednotky územní samosprávy a jiná taková díla, u nichž je veřejný zájem na vyloučení z ochrany". It is necessary to discriminate between works which fall clearly and explicitly into the legal definition ("právní předpis (enactment), rozhodnutí (decision), veřejná listina (authentic instrument, public document), veřejně přístupný rejstřík a sbírka jeho listin (public accesible registry and collection of its documents), jakož i úřední návrh úředního díla a jiná přípravná úřední dokumentace (as well as official proposal of an official work and other preparative official documentation), včetně úředního překladu takového díla (including an official translation of such work), sněmovní a senátní publikace (Parliament and Senat publications), pamětní knihy obecní (obecní kroniky) (municipal annals - chronicles), státní symbol a symbol jednotky územní samosprávy (national emblem and emblem of entity of municipal or regional self-government)") – and which don't fall or fall questionably ("jiná taková díla, u nichž je veřejný zájem na vyloučení z ochrany" - "other such works that it is public interest in their exclusion from protection" – it is always problematic to judge). The debate about "public interest" should concern only about such works which aren't specified explicitly as official works. A map, image etc. which is included in some legal enactment (for example pictures of road signs) or municipal public notice are clearly rightly used as copyright-free. Photographs are used in such documents rarely, but such cases exist (e. g. File:Policista-Stůj.jpg). But not whatever image or text which is published at government websites is automatically free. It is necessary to dispute an explicit list of controversial photos, not to abolish this template en bloc without individual examination. For example, a photo which is included into official municipal chronicle is clearly free by the law. But photo which is published at the municipal or government website isn't free generally. In the case of Parliament or Senat website, it is necessary to judge whether the website is "publikace" (a publication): I consider that "publikace" commonly means only printed one, but it is disputable, because website publishing is publishing too. --ŠJů (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Beren stated what is "Senate publication" elsewhere:

"Senate publications" (in Czech "senátní publikace") is a technical term. It is defined in law No. 107/1999, § 149, section 1. Senate publications are supporting documents for senate proceedings or stenographer records of senate sessions. Images on senate website are not senate publications according to the law. --Beren (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea about "Chamber of Deputies publications" though.--Kozuch (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No. 107/1999, § 149, section 1 isn't a definition of the term "senátní publikace". This sentence says that "supporting documents for senate proceedings or stenographer records of senate sessions" are senate publications. If some law says "identity card is a public document", it isn't a definition of public document. Also many other document can be public documents. Also many other publications can be senate publications. --ŠJů (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Specialists in Czech copyright law explicitly said that the sentence in law is a definition ("vymezení pojmu"). Look at TELEC, Ivo; TŮMA, Pavel. Autorský zákon: Komentář. Praha : C. H. Beck, 2007. ISBN 978-80-7179-608-04. § 3, kapitola Sněmovní a senátní publikace, s. 77. --Beren (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Good day. http://www.sagit.cz/pages/sbirkatxt.asp?zdroj=sb00121&cd=76&typ=r

§ 3 Výjimky z ochrany podle práva autorského ve veřejném zájmu

Ochrana podle práva autorského se nevztahuje naa) úřední dílo, jímž je právní předpis, rozhodnutí, veřejná listina, veřejně přístupný rejstřík a sbírka jeho listin, jakož i úřední návrh úředního díla a jiná přípravná úřední dokumentace, včetně úředního překladu takového díla, sněmovní a senátní publikace, pamětní knihy obecní (obecní kroniky), státní symbol a symbol jednotky územní samosprávy a jiná taková díla, u nichž je veřejný zájem na vyloučení z ochrany, b) výtvory tradiční lidové kultury, není-li pravé jméno autora obecně známo a nejde-li o dílo anonymní nebo o dílo pseudonymní (§ 7); užít takové dílo lze jen způsobem nesnižujícím jeho hodnotu, c) politický projev a řeč pronesenou při úředním jednání; autorovo právo k užití takových děl v souboru zůstává nedotčeno.

ENG: political speech and speech uttered at official act; authors hypothesized that right to use such divide by in set stays intact.

DE: politisch Äußerung und Sprache schlaff bei amtlich Handeln; des Autors Jus zu Benutzung solche teilen in der Datei verbleibt unberührt.

political speech: (bad transtaling) - it meaned as ALL politican documents, whereupon posture political personalities or political matters big of meaning (politcan portrait, historical photo etc)

--Fredy.00 (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You are quoting an outdated law. Law No. 121/2000 Coll. has been updated a few times already. Among others, Law No. 216/2006 Coll. has removed paragraph 3 c. See [2]. The current valid text of the law can be seen at e.g. [3]. --Mormegil (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but:

§ 3 Výjimky z ochrany podle práva autorského ve veřejném zájmu Ochrana podle práva autorského se nevztahuje na a) úřední dílo, jímž je právní předpis, rozhodnutí, opatření obecné povahy, veřejná listina, veřejně přístupný rejstřík a sbírka jeho listin, jakož i úřední návrh úředního díla a jiná přípravná úřední dokumentace, včetně úředního překladu takového díla, sněmovní a senátní publikace, pamětní knihy obecní (obecní kroniky), státní symbol a symbol jednotky územní samosprávy a jiná taková díla, u nichž je veřejný zájem na vyloučení z ochrany, b) výtvory tradiční lidové kultury, není-li pravé jméno autora obecně známo a nejde-li o dílo anonymní nebo o dílo pseudonymní (§ 7); užít takové dílo lze jen způsobem nesnižujícím jeho hodnotu.

Well, that’s the whole point of this discussion, it depends on the interpretation of these general terms. You are not telling anything new. --Mormegil (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Revison request alleged at Commons:Undeletion requests. --ŠJů (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)