Page MenuHomePhabricator

Allow local file uploads on Ukrainian Wikisource
Open, Stalled, Needs TriagePublic

Description

Hey. I'm the administrator of the Ukrainian Wikisource. I would like to include possible file uploads to the Ukrainian Wikisource (for registered users). Thanks

Event Timeline

Aklapper changed the task status from Open to Stalled.Sep 7 2020, 9:03 AM
Aklapper removed a project: Wikisource.

Hi @Arxivist! Please elaborate why you'd like to upload to a local wiki and why uploading to Wikimedia Commons is not sufficient, and please follow https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requesting_wiki_configuration_changes and provide a link to a community discussion. Thanks a lot!

(Removing Wikisource tag as per its description: "do not report language specific tasks under this project")

Urbanecm added a subscriber: Urbanecm.

(not directly on consensus, but this is stalled on community)

@Arxivist, if you have started one, can you give us a link to your community's discussion on this? thanks.

Aklapper renamed this task from Uploads files to the Ukrainian Wikisource to Allow local file uploads on Ukrainian Wikisource.Sep 24 2020, 9:32 AM

@Arxivist: For further info and background, please also see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Local_uploads_policy .
Also see the uk: entry on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content#Wikisource

Hello!

https://uk.wikisource.org/wiki/Вікіджерела:Скрипторій#Додаткова_функція

Done

чт, 24 вер. 2020 о 12:32 Aklapper <no-reply@phabricator.wikimedia.org> пише:

Aklapper renamed this task from "Uploads files to the Ukrainian
Wikisource" to "Allow local file uploads on Ukrainian Wikisource". View
Task https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T262193
*TASK DETAIL*
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T262193

*EMAIL PREFERENCES*
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/

*To: *Aklapper
*Cc: *Evrifaessa, Urbanecm, Base, Aklapper, Arxivist, CptViraj, Dibya,
Viztor, 94rain, DannyS712, Tks4Fish, Jayprakash12345, Kizule, DatGuy,
Devwaker, Niklitov, JEumerus, Ananthsubray, Superzerocool, Tulsi_Bhagat,
Wong128hk, Luke081515, SimmeD, Snowolf, Dcljr, Shizhao, Matanya, Rxy,
Jay8g, Krenair

@Arxivist: Thanks for the community discussion link. Please also see T262193#6490568

@Arxivist: For further info and background, please also see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Local_uploads_policy .
Also see the uk: entry on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content#Wikisource

I have seen these pages. We have a project that Commons doesn't like very much (archives). And for the local (Ukrainian) it is very suitable.

Hi. What is the approval situation? Community doesn't mind.

All files are confirmed by a license or template (internal copyright, criteria).

Hello,

All files are confirmed by a license or template (internal copyright, criteria).

What is an "internal copyright", please? Which criteria are you talking about?

Hi. What is the approval situation? Community doesn't mind.

Each project wishing to have local uploads enabled need to demonstrate need for the feature. Since free media files can (and should!) be on Commons, that usually means that according to the licensing policy (linked above), certain non-free media are allowed at that wiki. That means an exemption doctrine policy (EDP) needs to be approved by the community, which would define which non-free media can (not) be uploaded and why is that possible (according to both US and your local law).

As far as I know, Commons hosts many wikisource-related files, and I don't see any reason why they should be against Ukrainian files.

Thanks for your understanding,

Hello,

Thanks for the answer. We have a fundamentally different view of local copyright law. Commons advocates a tighter understanding of the law, but we have decided on broader exceptions. At least because of this principle, you can enable this option. The same story with documents of state standards. Commons believes that the copyright law is not enough (after all, there is a collision), we are on the side of the copyright law says that all government (documents, regulations, etc.) can be uploading.

With understanding

Hello,

All files are confirmed by a license or template (internal copyright, criteria).

What is an "internal copyright", please? Which criteria are you talking about?

Hi. What is the approval situation? Community doesn't mind.

Each project wishing to have local uploads enabled need to demonstrate need for the feature. Since free media files can (and should!) be on Commons, that usually means that according to the licensing policy (linked above), certain non-free media are allowed at that wiki. That means an exemption doctrine policy (EDP) needs to be approved by the community, which would define which non-free media can (not) be uploaded and why is that possible (according to both US and your local law).

As far as I know, Commons hosts many wikisource-related files, and I don't see any reason why they should be against Ukrainian files.

Thanks for your understanding,

For example, since there is no freedom of panoramas in Ukraine, photographs cannot be uploaded to commons. At the same time, the Ukrainian Wikipedia uploading these files with justification (which is permitted by law).

What is an "internal copyright", please? Which criteria are you talking about?

@Arxivist: The status is "stalled" (see upper left corner) as we need an EDP from you. See the links in T262193#6490568.

@Arxivist: The status is "stalled" (see upper left corner) as we need an EDP from you. See the links in T262193#6490568.

I have updated EDP. There is a vote and a link to the copyright page. Check, please. :)

I don't see any EDP posted at meta. I'm afraid that having a different view on copyright is not a reason to warrant enabling local uploads. Either given material is free, and then it should be possible to have it at Commons, or it isn't free, and at that point we need an EDP.

Panoramas posted with justification can make sense in Wikipedia, however, I don't see how that would benefit Wikisource.

I don't see any EDP posted at meta. I'm afraid that having a different view on copyright is not a reason to warrant enabling local uploads. Either given material is free, and then it should be possible to have it at Commons, or it isn't free, and at that point we need an EDP.

Panoramas posted with justification can make sense in Wikipedia, however, I don't see how that would benefit Wikisource.

Apparently you are the active editor of the Ukrainian section and have expressed your opinion on this matter. Well, thanks (sarcasm). The Russian section has this option, the Ukrainian section does not. The society voted in favor. You don't see? You'r right. You are definitely editing the Ukrainian section (sarcasm). Thanks and good luck.

@Arxivist: Hi, it looks like https://uk.wikisource.org/wiki/Вікіджерела:Авторське_право is now linked from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content#Wikisource (with a link text in French?). That linked page was created in 2013 and seems to be a Copyright Policy, not an Exemption Doctrine Policy?

To avoid more misunderstanding here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content states:
"An Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) is required by the Wikimedia licensing policy for any Wikimedia project that hosts non-free content." (emphasis by me)
(https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вікіпедія:Критерії_добропорядного_використання seems to be an example from the Ukrainian Wikipedia, if I understand correctly?)

There is no reason to get personal in comments, also see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bug_management/Phabricator_etiquette - thanks a lot! :)

Hi, Aklapper. That's right, the text is in French (edited by analogy, since there are no examples). It is also true that this is a copyright page. Exceptions are indicated there. Among other things, one template requires a description. And true about an example. Among other things, there are discrepancies with Commons (they adhere to a more rigid approach than the existing one, but in a conflict of law). (So much easier than taking it all apart?) There are discussions on this topic in the Ukrainian Wikipedia (https://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2970422). We have a template (example: https://uk.wikisource.org/w/index.php?curid=124135) for this. Other countries also have exceptions that prevent them from uploading to commons (eg Wikisource India). I just don't understand why some sections are allowed, but we cannot (and they do not have confirmation of the EDP). Our community voted for it. We will license all files with templates. At the first opportunity, we will upload to Commons. Thanks and hope for understanding.

@Arxivist: Hi, it looks like https://uk.wikisource.org/wiki/Вікіджерела:Авторське_право is now linked from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content#Wikisource (with a link text in French?). That linked page was created in 2013 and seems to be a Copyright Policy, not an Exemption Doctrine Policy?

To avoid more misunderstanding here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content states:
"An Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) is required by the Wikimedia licensing policy for any Wikimedia project that hosts non-free content." (emphasis by me)
(https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вікіпедія:Критерії_добропорядного_використання seems to be an example from the Ukrainian Wikipedia, if I understand correctly?)

There is no reason to get personal in comments, also see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bug_management/Phabricator_etiquette - thanks a lot! :)

I cannot follow or understand what the problem is. What are "sections" in "some sections are allowed"? When you write "we cannot", what exactly can you not? When you write "they do not have confirmation", who is "they"? Please be more specific if possible.

Again, this all boils down to having an EDP on Ukrainian Wikisource. And if that EDP is in place and is fine, writing and deploying a software change.

I cannot follow or understand what the problem is. What are "sections" in "some sections are allowed"?

Language versions in en_UA :)

@Urbanecm , @Aklapper ,

As far as I understand the problem, an EDP is not really applicable here. It is about Public Domain materials.

The thing is that Wikimedia Commons does not allow all public domain materials. As per Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_US_and_non-US_copyright_law Commons requires for a work to be in Public Domain in both the country of origin and the United States. On the other hand English Wikisource, for example, chose to only regard copyright status in the United States as per Wikisource:Copyright policy. Ukrainian Wikisource since 2013 has a policy which uses the same paradigm as the English Wikisource: Вікіджерела:Авторське право. This leads to the situation where some materials that are believed to be in PD in the US, but are not in PD in Ukraine or other countries, cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Since Wikisource does allow them, they have to be uploaded locally.

When we look at Resolution:Licensing policy we see a mention of copyright law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), but only in regards to EDP, i.e. it should not apply to the situation at hand. In fact Вікіджерела:Авторське право#Добропорядне_використання says that fair use is explicitly disallowed on Ukrainian Wikisource, so it basically matches e.g. Meta's EDP: Meta:Fair use.

The discussion mentions National Archive Fund of Ukraine materials, and from @Arxivist 's comments above it looks like some of them fall under {{PD-Ukraine-1969}} — as far as I remember that is a specific example where Commons policies come into place. Template_talk:PD-Ukraine on Commons has an extensive discussion on interpretation of the law, I think that is just one of the places where this discussion was conducted. When it comes to Commons in the end it is Precautionary principle what comes into play. It is a reasonable, but local policy on Commons.

Now, IANAL, but although I hate local files, I think per above there are valid use cases for uploads to Ukrainian Wikisource directly. Some are arguable but unless we have a global licensing policy beyond the framework of Licensing policy resolution, which is not as specific as local policies are, or unless WMF Legal has a say, this falls into local community's hands.

In the end also this task is about upload for non-administrators: administrators do upload files there anyway: Спеціальна:Список файлів (to be fair I think a few of them should after all be moved to Wikimedia Commons, and another bunch of them definitely does need to have their File pages to contain proper machine readable licensing tags), and in the past as far as I can see from the logs, non-administrators also had this ability. In fact in Спеціальна:Журнали/upload I see non-administrators records from 2014, while the copyright policy of the project was made in 2013, so basically whatever changed in the wiki configuration since did not take the local policy into account.

@Arxivist , if I misinterpret some things please clarify them, but I suggest you do it in Ukrainian so that I understand you better.

@NickK , @Ahonc, you might want to comment regarding the PD-Ukraine thing, since it never really drew my interest as much as yours.

Well, it seems that we cannot reach to an agreement here. My opinion is that if a content is free, it really should be on Commons. Ignoring a law in a country in which a project (ukwikisource) is predominantly accessed in sounds like a pretty bad idea to me.

As I'm not a lawyer or Foundation representative, and this is a (potential) legal issue, not a technical issue, I'll defer to the WMF legal department to decisively settle this.

As the WMF-Legal project tag was added to this task, some general information to avoid wrong expectations:
Please note that public tasks in Wikimedia Phabricator are in general not a place where to expect feedback from the Legal Team of the Wikimedia Foundation due to the scope of the team and/or nature of legal topics. See the project tag description.
Please see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal for when and how to contact the Legal Team. Thanks!

In T262193#6687748, @Herald wrote:

As the WMF-Legal project tag was added to this task, some general information to avoid wrong expectations:
Please note that public tasks in Wikimedia Phabricator are in general not a place where to expect feedback from the Legal Team of the Wikimedia Foundation due to the scope of the team and/or nature of legal topics. See the project tag description.
Please see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal for when and how to contact the Legal Team. Thanks!

While I know I'm replying to Herald, I want to acknowledge I'm aware of this, and will email Legal.

In the Meaning of ignoring law?

Well, it seems that we cannot reach to an agreement here. My opinion is that if a content is free, it really should be on Commons. Ignoring a law in a country in which a project (ukwikisource) is predominantly accessed in sounds like a pretty bad idea to me.

As I'm not a lawyer or Foundation representative, and this is a (potential) legal issue, not a technical issue, I'll defer to the WMF legal department to decisively settle this.

I do not understand why they need local uploads for Public Domain media. Commons allow upload scanned text for further recognition for Wikisource.

@Ahonc: they want to upload Ukranian files which are Public Domain in the US but not in Ukraine.
I agree with @Urbanecm in that this seems a can of worms for contributors to Wikisource in Ukraine (which we can fairly expect to be based in Ukraine), which would be uploading files violating the copyright in their local country.

@Arxivist: I don't think that dropping confusing one-sentence comments helps anybody here.

I don't think that dropping confusing one-sentence comments helps anybody here.

Looks like pretty clear literal translation of "у сенсі X?" phrase.

Thus the comment should have gone "what do you mean by ignoring the law"

1. UKwikisource has template PD-Ukraine-1969 (https://uk.wikisource.org/w/index.php?curid=124135) which falls under the Ukrainian and American laws, but does not exist on Commons.
2. Ukraine has copyright law. It states that all government documents are not copyrighted. But there is another law regarding state standards, which says that each standard cannot be shared without the specific permission.

Well, it seems that we cannot reach to an agreement here. My opinion is that if a content is free, it really should be on Commons. Ignoring a law in a country in which a project (ukwikisource) is predominantly accessed in sounds like a pretty bad idea to me.

As I'm not a lawyer or Foundation representative, and this is a (potential) legal issue, not a technical issue, I'll defer to the WMF legal department to decisively settle this.

1. UKwikisource has template PD-Ukraine-1969 (https://uk.wikisource.org/w/index.php?curid=124135) which falls under the Ukrainian and American laws, but does not exist on Commons.

It can be created on Commons, can't it?

2. Ukraine has copyright law. It states that all government documents are not copyrighted. But there is another law regarding state standards, which says that each standard cannot be shared without the specific permission.

That indicates they're de-facto copyrighted - as copyright is basically "right to copy".

It can be created on Commons, can't it?

It cannot because it is own interpretation of laws by Arxivist. Common interpretation is if author died before 1951 the work is in PD (since next year it will be 70 years+1 after death of author). So works with author died between 1951 and 1969 are considered as not in PD on Commons.

It can be created on Commons, can't it?

It cannot because it is own interpretation of laws by Arxivist. Common interpretation is if author died before 1951 the work is in PD (since next year it will be 70 years+1 after death of author). So works with author died between 1951 and 1969 are consider as not in PD on Commons.

This is not only my position. This was discussed at the conference and written by independent legal organizations.

1. UKwikisource has template PD-Ukraine-1969 (https://uk.wikisource.org/w/index.php?curid=124135) which falls under the Ukrainian and American laws, but does not exist on Commons.

It can be created on Commons, can't it?

2. Ukraine has copyright law. It states that all government documents are not copyrighted. But there is another law regarding state standards, which says that each standard cannot be shared without the specific permission.

That indicates they're de-facto copyrighted - as copyright is basically "right to copy".

  1. Probably not, "bureaucrats" don't think so. But there are many people (and lawyers too) who think so. In addition, there is judicial practice in this interpretation.
  1. I'm talking about the need for a paid tax for a copy of such documents (So in the law.). Not more.

Please provide references for statements like judicial practice - thanks.

@Aklapper @Arxivist @Base @NickK @Urbanecm I suggest to discuss this case in Commons' VP. If Arxivist will prove that pre-1969-author-death works are free, then we will change templates and will comsider such works as free.

Please provide references for statements like judicial practice - thanks.

At the moment I'm translating all text. For now, see the original (Ukrainian). Thanks.

Зі справи Альошина

На момент смерті ОСОБА_2 діяв закон УРСР, яким був встановлений термін охорони майнових авторських прав 15 років після смерті автора.

З 1974р. і до 1994 р. діяла ст.493 Цивільного кодексу УРСР, якою було встановлено, що авторське право діє протягом життя автора та 25 років після його смерті, рахуючи з 1 січня року, який настає за роком смерті автора.

Відповідно до вимог ст.499 того ж ЦК УРСР твір архітектури - будинок на вул. Володимирській № 57 в м.Києві став надбанням держави.

Таким чином, на момент приєднання України до Бернської конвенції про охорону . літературних творів твір архітектора ОСОБА_2 став суспільним надбанням.

З огляду на викладене, суд першої інстанції обґрунтовано виходив з того, що 1 січня 1987 року термін охорони майнових прав на твір ОСОБА_2 за авторським правом вичерпано 1 січня 1987 р. і

Суд повно і всебічно з`ясувавши обставини справи, дійшов правильного висновку про відмову позивачці в позові.

Рішення суду є законним, обгрунтованим, підстав для його скасування немає.

link

From the case of Alyoshin

Since 1974 and until 1994, Article 493 of the Civil Code of the USSR was in force, which established that copyright is valid during the life of the author and 25 years after his death, starting from January 1 of the year following the year of the author's death.

In accordance with the requirements of Article 499 of the same Central Committee of the USSR work of architecture - a house on the street. Volodymyrska № 57 in Kyiv became the property of the state.

Thus, at the time of Ukraine's accession to the Bern Convention on Protection. literary works of the architect PERSON_2 became public property.

link

Зі справи № 22-12964 від 14.11.2012

"З наявних у матеріалах справи письмових доказів вбачається, що фільм "Секретний ешелон" був створений до травня 1993 року (у травні відбулася презентація стрічки в Одесі та Києві), тобто у період дії Цивільного кодексу УРСР 1963 року, '''тому до відповідних правовідносин, у тому числі при визначенні суб'єкта авторського права, застосовуються норми ЦК УРСР 1963 року'''."

Положення Закону України «Про авторське право і суміжні права» від 23 грудня 1993 року № 3792-XII (набрав чинності 23 лютого 1994 року) та ЦК України 2003 року (набрав чинності з 1 січня 2004 року) не розповсюджуються на правовідносини, які виникли до набрання чинності указаними законодавчими актами, зокрема на момент створення художнього фільму "Секретний ешелон", - 1993 рік.

Судом першої інстанції правильно зазначено, що положення Закону України «Про авторське право і суміжні права» від 23 грудня 1993 року № 3792-XII (набрав чинності 23 лютого 1994 року) та ЦК України 2003 року (набрав чинності з 1 січня 2004 року) не розповсюджуються на правовідносини, які виникли до набрання чинності указаними законодавчими актами.

Крім того, Бернська конвенція про охорону літературних і художніх творів набрала чинності для України 25 жовтня 1995 року, Всесвітня конвенція про авторське право 1952 року (Женева, 6 вересня 1952 року) набрала чинності для України 17 січня 1994 року, до Договору Всесвітньої організації інтелектуальної власності про авторське право, прийнятого Дипломатичною конференцією 20 грудня 1996 року, Україна приєдналася 20 вересня 2001 року.

link

  • Зі справи № 3/167 від 23.03.2010**

Станом на час створення фільму «Острів скарбів», відносини щодо майнових авторського права на твір регулювалися Цивільним кодексом Української РСР від 18 липня 1963 року (надалі також «Цивільний кодекс УРСР»).

Відповідно до пункту 1 Закону України «Про авторське права та суміжні права»«цей Закон набирає чинності з дня його опублікування і застосовується '''до правовідносин, які виникли після набрання ним чинності».'''

Крім того, відповідно до статті '''58 Конституції України закони та інші нормативно-правові акти не мають зворотної дії в часі, крім випадків, коли вони пом'якшують або скасовують відповідальність особи.'''

Виходячи із зазначеного Суд вважає, що при вирішенні адміністративної справи, зокрема при визначенні субєкта, який має майнові авторські права на Фільм, відповідні правовідносини регулюються законодавством про авторське право, яке було чинним на момент створення Фільму.

  • Зі справи № 2-190/10 від 09.06.2010**

Відповідно до ч. 1. ст. '''58 Конституції України закони та інші нормативно-правові акти не мають зворотної дії в часі, крім випадків, коли вони помякшують або скасовують відповідальність особи.'''

Відповідно до п. п. 2, 3 Рішення Конституційного суду України щодо офіційного тлумачення положення ч. 1 ст. 58 Конституції України від 09.02.1999 р. за загальновизнаним принципом права закони та інші нормативно-правові акти не мають зворотної дії в часі.

Виходячи із зазначеного, оскільки всі мультиплікаційні фільми були створені в період з 1967 р. по 1987 р., коли ще діяв Цивільний кодекс УРСР 1963 року, суд вважає, що до відповідних правовідносин, в т.ч. у визначенні субєкта авторського права, застосовується норми ЦК УРСР 1963 р.

link

  • Зі справи № 761/25131/13-ц: від 30.05.2015**

Авторські права на кінофільми, зняті у період до 01.01.1964 р. були врегульовані Постановою Центрального виконавчого комітету СССР та Ради народних комісарів СССР від 30.01.1925 р. «Про основи авторського права» та Постановою Центрального виконавчого комітету СССР та Ради народних комісарів СССР від 16.05.1928 р. «Про введення в дію основ авторського права в новій редакції».

Відповідно до п. 1 Постанови від 30.01.'''1925''' р. «Про основи авторського права» авторське право на твір, як той, що з'явився на світ на території Союзу ССР, так і тих, що знаходяться на території Союзу ССР у вигляді рукопису, ескізу або в іншій об'єктивній формі, визнається за автором та його правонаступниками незалежно від їх громадянства.

При цьому, п. 8 вказаної вище Постанови від 30.01.1925 р. визначено, що строк користування авторським правом у т.ч. на кінематографічні сценарії і кінострічки встановлюється у десять років.

Положення зазначених нормативно-правових актів містили положення про те, що у разі смерті автора, авторське право переходить до його спадкоємців лише на залишок строку, встановленого Постановою, однак, не більш ніж на 15 років, рахуючи з першого січня року смерті автора.

За таких обставин, строк користування позивачем авторськими правами на фільми «ІНФОРМАЦІЯ_7» (1958 рік), «ІНФОРМАЦІЯ_2» (1962 рік), «ІНФОРМАЦІЯ_20» (1963 рік) сплинув по закінченню десяти років з моменту їх першого правомірного видання, тобто на сьогоднішній день позивач не є суб'єктом авторського права на зазначені фільми, у зв'язку з чим Відповідачами не можуть бути порушені його авторські права на такі фільми.

link

  • № 332/2106/14-ц від 14.07.2014**

Суд критично оцінює твердження позивача стосовно наявності підстав застосування судового захисту в сфері інтелектуальної власності до твору образотворчого мистецтва, створеного у 1967 році. Оскільки цивільні відносини по створенню твору у ОСОБА_2 виникли ще під час дії Цивільного Кодексу УРСР від 18 липня 1963 року із змінами, внесеними в нього, то при мотивуванні пред'явлених позовних вимог слід ним керуватись.

link

Please provide references for statements like judicial practice - thanks.

At the moment I'm translating all text. For now, see the original (Ukrainian). Thanks.

I think it would be better to discuss this either on Ukrainian Wikisource or on Wikimedia Commons, as Phabricator is not a great place for such discussions.

Alyoshyn's case is indeed quite interesting, however, it might have been a creative legal reasoning, as the case requested to replace all 50 UAH bills and the National Bank of Ukraine to pay a significant amount of money.

There are however opposite interpretations, in particular https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/11693601 stating that a 1960 work clearly falling under the 2001 copyright law.

Basically there are two approaches:

  1. Ukrainian law is never retroactive, thus the applicable copyright law is either the one as of creation of the work or the one as of author's death.
  2. Ukrainian law amendment in 2001 was retroactive and covered all works where copyright did not expire 50 years ago, and Berne convention was effectively applicable only from 2001 on.

There is an interesting legal opinion here https://cedem.org.ua/analytics/strok-avtorske-prava-aspekt/ stating that copyright law applied is determined as of date of the publication. For instance, there are works published in 1995 that were in public domain at that time but are not anymore based on the 2001 copyright law: 1995 copies remain legal, but republishing them in 2020 is not legal anymore.

If the above-mentioned approach is what was indeed meant (which looks fairly reasonable in my view) this provision cannot be applied to Wikisource. Wikisource did not exist in 2001, thus the new 2001 copyright law applies to all edits on Wikisource.

The 1969 date does not seem to correspond to any of the two options:

  1. In case the applicable law is chosen as of creation date, 1969 does not correspond to anything. It may be even 15 years pma for works published before 1963: for instance, Vinhranovskyi died in 2004, but as his first major work https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Атомні_прелюди was first published in 1962 when it was still 15 years pma, it felt into public domain in Ukraine in 2020; however, as it was not in public domain as of 2001, it will remain copyrighted for a long time in the US
  2. In case the retroactive application of 2001 is reasonable, there is nothing in 1969. There is only 1951 (2001-50 years) and this will largely become obsolete for Ukraine in two weeks and will only stay for US/URAA copyright purposes.

It is indeed worth discussing with Legal, or making a community discussion.

1. The specified decision as an example (of the monument to Lenin) is not a court dispute over copyright. I think this example is manipulation in the discussion. It concerns the movement of a monument from place to place. The mention of copyright is indirect. This example is not subject to copyright litigation!

2. Manipulation also in 1969. The copyright law came into effect in February 1994. 1994-25 = 1969.

3. Copies are not reissued by scanning.

4. Your opinion is more like the original research (thought), but is not supported by court decisions in essence (such as the case of Alyoshin).

  1. Are there examples of copyright court decisions to support your point?

Please provide references for statements like judicial practice - thanks.

At the moment I'm translating all text. For now, see the original (Ukrainian). Thanks.

I think it would be better to discuss this either on Ukrainian Wikisource or on Wikimedia Commons, as Phabricator is not a great place for such discussions.

Alyoshyn's case is indeed quite interesting, however, it might have been a creative legal reasoning, as the case requested to replace all 50 UAH bills and the National Bank of Ukraine to pay a significant amount of money.

There are however opposite interpretations, in particular https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/11693601 stating that a 1960 work clearly falling under the 2001 copyright law.

etc

1. The specified decision as an example (of the monument to Lenin) is not a court dispute over copyright. I think this example is manipulation in the discussion. It concerns the movement of a monument from place to place. The mention of copyright is indirect. This example is not subject to copyright litigation!

2. Manipulation also in 1969. The copyright law came into effect in February 1994. 1994-25 = 1969.

3. Copies are not reissued by scanning.

4. Your opinion is more like the original research (thought), but is not supported by court decisions in essence (such as the case of Alyoshin).

  1. Are there examples of copyright court decisions to support your point?

Please provide references for statements like judicial practice - thanks.

At the moment I'm translating all text. For now, see the original (Ukrainian). Thanks.

I think it would be better to discuss this either on Ukrainian Wikisource or on Wikimedia Commons, as Phabricator is not a great place for such discussions.

Alyoshyn's case is indeed quite interesting, however, it might have been a creative legal reasoning, as the case requested to replace all 50 UAH bills and the National Bank of Ukraine to pay a significant amount of money.

There are however opposite interpretations, in particular https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/11693601 stating that a 1960 work clearly falling under the 2001 copyright law.

Also manipulation and only original opinion. The state very often loses court cases.

Alyoshyn's case is indeed quite interesting, however, it might have been a creative legal reasoning, as the case requested to replace all 50 UAH bills and the National Bank of Ukraine to pay a significant amount of money.
etc

I would really think that this discussion should take place on Commons and not on Phabricator, Phabricator is really not a good place for copyright discussion. Please do open the relevant section on Commons.

I would also be picky about the cases you cite.
https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/27419884 , https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/9730353 and https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/39734312 are all on finding out who is the copyright owner. Obviously the law as of creation date should apply to find out who owns the rights, as rights are distributed between creators upon creation and not years later. (In all three cases the dispute was on whether a person or a company owns rights).

There are only two cases where the topic of interest is the actual copyright duration.

Also manipulation and only original opinion. The state very often loses court cases.

I have never seen a state losing a copyright case on state symbols.
For instance, in https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/5749072 a book publisher lost an obvious Freedom of Panorama case (picture of a copyrighted monument published on a book cover without attribution nor permission). The very same monument was depicted on bank notes of different denominations without attribution nor permission (even more prominent!), but the state somehow managed to win it https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/5023735
You use a picture of the monument on 5 thousand books, you lose. You use a picture of the same monument on ~5 billion bank notes, you win.
Obviously the court had to use some creative legal reasoning to help the state win.

  1. Are there examples of copyright court decisions to support your point?

The only remaining case is really interesting.

https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/34397037 The work is only eligible for copyright protection *only* according to the law in effect on the date of its creation. The 1925 copyright law protected films for 10 years from creation or 15 years pma, whichever is shorter. The 1963 copyright law offers more generous protection (25 pma). but the court decided that a 1962 film is not eligible for this protection and is only eligible for 10 years per the 1925 law, hence having fallen into public domain in 1972.

This is really interesting, but there might be three interpretations of it:

  • The copyright holder was probably not eligible for protection under the 1963 law, thus they could not benefit from the greater protection.
  • They were suing the Ministry of Culture on a lucrative contract, so creative legal reasoning was needed as the state could not lose it.
  • The court genuinely considers copyright protection as a contract that you sign upon creation and where you cannot benefit from any later changes to the copyright law, even if they are more generous.

I pretty much think it is a mix of the first two options, your arguments could be valid only in case it was the third one.

On the remaining points.

3. Copies are not reissued by scanning.

When you publish a work on Wikisource that was not there before, it is absolutely considered as publishing (опублікування твору)).Wikisource is considered an electronic information system (електронні системи інформації) for copyright purposes so giving access to a work on it is legally publishing. Scanning does not create new copyright but it is considered a new publication as public can access the work using a new electronic information system.

You must absolutely respect all copyright rules that apply to publishing a new edition of a work.

4. Your opinion is more like the original research (thought), but is not supported by court decisions in essence (such as the case of Alyoshin).

Not mine, see Rozkladay's publication above https://cedem.org.ua/analytics/strok-avtorske-prava-aspekt/ . I obviously think he is a much better lawyer than I am :)

Indeed... As per T262193#6698508 and T262193#6707216:
Please first sort out interpretation, either on Ukrainian Wikisource or on Wikimedia Commons.
Not here in this Phab ticket.

Once that's done, please update the status here in this Phab ticket.
Thanks a lot everyone! :)