I have just noticed a nicely written document http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/handbook.html that makes some enlightened statement but I am not sure how well this stands for enforcers of policy on Wikimedia Commons.
I have just got a deletion nomination for a few files I thought would be public domain simply because they are not legal tender and are not creative expressions. The files in question are https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indian_radio_license_full.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indian_radio_tv_license.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indian_radio_license.jpg but I see a lot more potential impact, for instance on most of the files in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Documents_of_India for example https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BEST-tickets.jpg
I believe that the Wikimedia Chapter in India has a role in ensuring that good legal advise is used to clarify along with the WMF legal counsel, the summary posted on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-India
I believe that the definition of "work" in the Indian Copyright Act would leave many items ineligible for copyright and perhaps would make sense if experts could specify them.
Any comments? Also welcome on the deletion nominations for the files listed above.
best wishes Shyamal
**
Hi,<br/><br/>Could you help me understand why you need an interpretation of Indian law in this case? I understood that US Copyright laws would be applicable on Wikimedia Commons as the servers are in the US.<br/><br/>Pradeep<br/><br/>Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
Hi Shyamal,
Can you please expand " I believe that the definition of "work" in the Indian Copyright Act would leave many items ineligible for copyright and perhaps would make sense if experts could specify them. " a bit more?
I failed to understand it, as the object/work is same thing in nearly all copyright acts.
Regards, Dhaval On 11 Sep 2013 04:48, "Shyamal L." lshyamal@gmail.com wrote:
I have just noticed a nicely written document http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/handbook.html that makes some enlightened statement but I am not sure how well this stands for enforcers of policy on Wikimedia Commons.
I have just got a deletion nomination for a few files I thought would be public domain simply because they are not legal tender and are not creative expressions. The files in question are https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indian_radio_license_full.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indian_radio_tv_license.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indian_radio_license.jpg but I see a lot more potential impact, for instance on most of the files in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Documents_of_India for example https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BEST-tickets.jpg
I believe that the Wikimedia Chapter in India has a role in ensuring that good legal advise is used to clarify along with the WMF legal counsel, the summary posted on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-India
I believe that the definition of "work" in the Indian Copyright Act would leave many items ineligible for copyright and perhaps would make sense if experts could specify them.
Any comments? Also welcome on the deletion nominations for the files listed above.
best wishes Shyamal
**
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
Hi Dhaval,
Copyright protection is intended to protect "creative works" and many of the things that government produce are not supposed to involve creativity, they are supposed to be factual. The Indian Copyright Act says that certain works of government are not copyrighted (ie in the public domain):
http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf <quote> (q) the reproduction or publication of- (i) any matter which has been published in any Official Gazette except an Act of a Legislature; (ii) any Act of a Legislature subject to the condition that such Act is reproduced or published together with any commentary thereon or any other original matter; (iii) the report of any committee, commission, council, board or other like body appointed by the Government if such report has been laid on the Table of the Legislature, unless the reproduction or publication of such report is prohibited by the Government; (iv) any judgement or order of a court, tribunal or other judicial authority, unless the reproduction or publication of such judgment or order is prohibited by the court, the tribunal or other judicial authority,as the case may be; (r) the production or publication of a translation in any Indian language of an Act of a Legislature and of any rules or orders made thereunder- (i) if no translation of such Act or rules or orders in that language has previously been produced or published by the Government; or (ii) where a translation of such Act or rules or orders in that language has been produced or published by the Government, if the translation is not available for sale to the public: Provided that such translation contains a statement at a prominent place to the effect that the translation has not been authorised or accepted as authentic by the Government; </quote>
My suggestion is that tickets issued in buses or trains, government forms etc. would most likely be outside the scope of "work" as defined by the Copyright Act. Legal tender such as currency would be obviously not come under such protection as that would amount to or support counterfeiting but I would argue that tickets and licenses that are no longer valid are not legal tender. Similarly an image of a passport with certain key elements erased would form the blank format and since these are publicly available there might be an argument to consider them not under copyright.
A secondary point I am making here is that practical value can be added only if the Wikimedia Chapter in India has a legal voice that can be heard alongside that of the Wikimedia Foundation.
I failed to understand it, as the object/work is same thing in nearly all
copyright acts. Not at all. There is considerable difference across countries particularly with reference to Freedom of Panorama and government work, and also on how the First-sale doctrine applies. http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml
best wishes Shyamal
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Dhaval S. Vyas dsvyas@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Shyamal,
Can you please expand " I believe that the definition of "work" in the Indian Copyright Act would leave many items ineligible for copyright and perhaps would make sense if experts could specify them. " a bit more?
I failed to understand it, as the object/work is same thing in nearly all copyright acts.
Regards, Dhaval
wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org