Template talk:PD-Yugoslavia

Function of this template?

In what sense is this a Public Domain template? The law text it cites does not contain any provision that would place anything into the public domain at all. What justifies the claim that "This work is not an object of copyright"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing but to conceal mass copyright violations of the European legislation. Jingby (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, the template should be used to describe a file, media, etc. as under the joint PD of the Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. The PD is shared between those countries. So if a file, media, etc. comes from Slovenia in the time of Yugoslavia and is concerned on Yugoslavia in general, it should be tagged with PD-Yugoslavia and with PD-Slovenia. -- Imbris (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "joint PD"? If it's "joint", it's "joint copyright". If it were PD, it wouldn't be anybody's, not joint and not individually. "Joint PD" is a contradiction in terms.

Maybe you are confusing the concepts of "public domain" and "public property"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, when this template was not circulating there were certain misuse of the issue who gave the PD on official files, media, etc. of the former SFRY. It was only this Agreement that could be considered as the fountain of PD for official files, media, etc. of the former SFRY. This is all. Official files, media, etc. become PD after some disclaimer, in this case the disclaimer is PD-Yugoslavia. It is not to be used without the disclaimer, or could it be used? Joint-PD is not contradictory in simmilar cases. This is not like in the case of USSR where Russian Federation asserted its claim of successorship over all former USSR files, media, etc. -- Imbris (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not confusing anything, something is PD if proclaimed by the owner as such and under a proper disclaimer. -- Imbris (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the text you cited doesn't deal with such. It deals with things that are in fact not PD but copyrighted by the state: "rights and interests which belonged to the SFRY [...] (including [...] copyright [...])" If it's a copyright owned by the state, then it's not PD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cited text speaks of the time frame and the division of the assets, one of such assets are copyrights (also the power to proclaim official files, media, etc. as PD). All of eight former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's republics and autonomous provinces are covered by their own legislature (except the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina which is currently covered by the law of the Republic of Serbia only). In those laws all of the eight have proclaimed official file, media, etc. as PD but since the SFRY has no individual country as its successor, but currently six of the former eight we must use this template for SFRY (and all otherwise named Yugoslav state) to disclaim PD. It is valid only for official files, media, etc. not for enterprises, factories, and other corporative or individual possesions (which are covered by copyright), maybe the leading statement of the template should be rephrased. -- Imbris (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, either an item was already PD by virtue of the laws of old Yugoslavia, then this treaty doesn't affect it. Or it was copyrighted state property, then after this treaty it is still copyrighted state property. Or it was copyrighted and became PD through some later legislation in the successor states, but then you need to cite those later laws, not this one. This treaty alone doesn't place anything into the public domain, and the current wording of the template ("... is not the object of copyright...") is therefore blatantly misleading. As for any rules that place "official works" into the public domain, last time I looked there appeared to be some massive misunderstandings about what that meant. Consensus prevailed on Wikipedia that it does not cover all works produced by state agencies (it's not like in the US); it's really only meant for things like law texts, official emblems and the like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laws of the defunct Yugoslavia cannot apply and the treaty (agreement) is in effect the final document on the dissolution of Yugoslavia. In the times of old Yugoslavia (the Socialist state) all laws of the former Kingdom of Yugoslavia were proclaimed invalid, and copyright laws gave PD to official files, media. Countries successor to the old Yugoslavia (the Socialist state) have their own laws which (each of them) gives PD to the official files, media, etc. Official files, media, etc. were not copyrighted in the old Yugoslavia.

We most certainly need to cite this agreement because the PD of old Yugoslavia is obtained in those percentages of the PD arangements in the laws of successor countries.

I belive that as much as it can look misleading, it is most certainly not because in old Yugoslavia, as well as in successor states all official files, media, etc. is PD if not marked with some corporative, joint public-corporative or individual copyrights.

Imbris (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got a reference for the statement that official works were already not copyrighted by the laws of the old Yugoslavia? If that's the case, then we don't need any of this. They were PD from the date of their creation, the agreement doesn't cover them, nothing changed. The agreement only divided up what Yugoslavia owned; if Yugoslavia had already placed things in the public domain, then it didn't own them. You can't divide up non-ownership. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought the issue up at Commons too, where the same template exists. I've proposed there a rewording that I think salvages at least a bit of the original intention [1], but I'm not entirely certain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your attempt to make this work, but objects that were PD in former Yugoslavia are now PD through exactly those percentages and in the time frame set by the Agreement. I think those information should be returned. Also I think that all copyright laws of all successor states should be mentioned, it seems more effective not to list all those copyright laws because the issue is not very complicated when using the data set in that agreement (effective from 2004-06-02 on) all those info makes it easier for the user to exactly know the time frame, percentages, validity of the Agreement, etc. -- Imbris (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what the percentages have to do with anything. They are only relevant for the internal summary distribution of financial revenues between these states. For us, and for the assessment of individual works, they mean zilch. Legalities about the coming into force of the agreement are also irrelevant – we know it's in force now, basta. If you want to add links to the copyright laws of the other republics, feel free. But some mention of those is necessary, because it is crucial for the user to understand that not all of the former state-owned Yugoslavian copyrights are now in the public domain, but only that particular subset of "official" works. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the intended function of this template ever was, vast majority of images tagged with it are nothing but blatant copyright infringement. I am an admin on srwiki and we regularly deal with editors in whose imaginary world there were no copyrights in the perfect world of socialist Yugoslavia, and even if there were, they certainly didn't apply to pictures published by "social enterprises" (a.k.a. 99% of then-companies, which of course had their own property including intellectual property) or pictures of "people's heroes" or pictures of... well, whatever was on the picture that they wanted to include. Most of the images filed under this template are anything but official - some have no authors listed, some are stolen intellectual property, you name it - and should, in my humble opinion, be presumed ripe for quick deletion until proved otherwise. It wouldn't be a bad idea to give ex-yu wikis some notice before mass deletion so that we can try to salvage some small selection under fair use. --Dzordzm (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Fut.Perf. - the template asserts nothing regarding the PD status of tagged items. And as for this purported PD status, ei incumbit probatio qui dicit. GregorB (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is obvious. If something was in the public domain in SFR Yugoslavia, than it is in public domain once for ever. The fact that Yugoslavia fell apart has nothing to do with that, nor has to do any Agreement on succession issues. Something that is in public domain is 100% public, regardless of any future agreements. I agree that this template is mostly misused to claim copyrighted images or images of unknown status as public domain images. What we actually need are two templates. One is a template that says official material of Yugoslavian government is in public domain, but that one would only cover the official material (like laws). And we need another template that will be used for copyrighted Yugoslavian images (like User:Future Perfect at Sunrise made at commons) that will explain how the copyrighted images of former Yugoslavia are now treated. This one would be only used for copyrighted images with appropriate rationale. The vast majority of images now covered with this template would not be covered with these new templates, and they would need to be deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]