Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Russia: Difference between revisions

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]

• What is your question or suggestion? Alex Spade (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alex Spade: Just compare this TOO Russia with e.g. COM:TOO Brazil, COM:TOO China, COM:TOO India, etc. I would say that TOO Russia looks fairly offtopic. Originally I dream that TOO Russia should say that " Not OK for e.g. Gazprom logos, but OK for e.g. File:RZD.svg", but now, I'm loss, really loss. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You are not alone. There is not updated court practice for logos after Session Resolution of The Supreme Court. But it is likely, that logo designed by someone (not just typеd)(for example, logo which has got document on visual style) is copyrightable. Alex Spade (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

@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]

What are the rules around unpublished works, e.g., historical/archival images from the 1920 that were never published?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]

• For unpublished old films see p.5 of {{PD-Russia}}/{{PD-Russia-1996}}.
• For unpublished non-anonymous works see p.1-2 with note 1 of same templates.
• Unpublished anonymous works are protected indefinitely. Alex Spade (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Free Strelkov! August 2023.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Advertising PMC Wagner Group Billboard.jpg

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

• Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle It is unimportant for Commons, if someone will go to law or will not, court will accept someone's action of will not. It is important - works is free/PD or not. Alex Spade (talk) 22:22, 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 ocivil 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]