Commons:Deletion requests/File:Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un hold talks in Beijing.jpg

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.

File:Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un hold talks in Beijing.jpg

Copyvio: as stated in the source URL, “Copyright ©2015-2016(8) www.gov.cn ... All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to www.gov.cn. Without written authorization from www.gov.cn, such content shall not be republished or used in any form.” Photos taken by the Chinese government are usually not in public domain under Chinese copyright laws. --Spring Roll Conan ( Talk · Contributions ) 09:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

According to Copyright Law of the PRC, the Article 5 says 'This Law shall not be applicable to ... (2) news on current affairs; ...' I consider this event conveyed in the picture should be a kind of 'news on current affairs'. 凝紫明 (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is: "news on current affairs" in Article 5 of the Chinese copyright law means mere report of facts through various media sources (as mandated in the implementation regulations of that law). Without stating the background of this image, the image itself is not "news on current affairs", just an enrichment to the news. --Spring Roll Conan ( Talk · Contributions ) 15:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

According to the Implementation Regulations of the law, the Article 5.2 only applies to the "[s]imple news about the fact". Pictures are not eligible. --WQL (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete: In the source page, it has labelled "Xinhua", which stands for Xinhua News Agency. Pictures from XNA are no public domain. --WQL (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Keep Xinhua News Agency is not the private news agency, but public news agency - Founded 1931; 87 years ago, Owner: People's Republic of China (100% Chinese Government-owned institution) , ref: It's from the User:AyodeleA1's original contribution Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  1. The history of the source doesn't determine whether the file concerned is under public domain. The Chinese government (or Xinhua News Agency, whatever) has explicitly claim copyrights for photos and text they publish - that's why I voted to delete Zhao Leji's portrait a few months ago.
  2. Please read the Article 5 of the Chinese copyright law again. For government works, only government edicts (or in Chinese, 法律、法规，国家机关的决议、决定、命令和其他具有立法、行政、司法性质的文件，及其官方正式译文) are exempted from copyright protection.
  3. I beg to differ with your explanation - If the uploader him／herself took that photo, s/he should contact with Commons:OTRS to give evidence that s/he is the owner of this photo. The OTRS volunteer team will then review the statement and determine whether to accept it. If accepted they will tag the work. This is the only acceptable way for Commons to handle copyright-released media files; unilateral claims just doesn't work. --Spring Roll Conan ( Talk · Contributions ) 11:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• Speedydelete: non-free image. --Garam _talk 11:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Note - Regarding Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (2010) and Commons:Copyright rules by People's Republic of China.

It's my understanding that the photo is applicable to the Article 5: The law does not apply to those specified in Template:PD-PRC-exempt.

• As "The key point" might be whether the photo of the news it the part of news on current affairs.
• The summary definition of News on Wikipedia "News is information about current events. News is provided through many different media" (examples: printing, broadcasting; public Television or Public Radio, or electronic communication )
• Article 5 This Law shall not be applicable to:

The Copyright Law of China: Article 5 This Law shall not be applicable to: (1) laws, regulations, resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs; other documents of legislative, administrative or judicial nature; and their official translations;
(2) news on current affairs;
(3) calendars, numerical tables, forms of general use and formulas. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• • I have elaborated on my stance based on the implementation regulations of the Chinese copyright law - photos are not considered "news on current affairs". Wikipedia is blocked in Mainland China, and it has no effect on how to interpret the Chinese copyright law. Chinese judiciary's viewpoint on this matter is inconclusive, yet some legal opinions (by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress - which have the right to interpret laws they [or plenums of the NPC] drafted and passed - and judiciary) support my point (see here and here).--Spring Roll Conan ( Talk · Contributions ) 14:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Dear Spring Roll Conan, Thank you for your valuable contribution. I love to see the actual court cases: especially the second link: "On the Meaning of "Current Affairs News" in "The Copyright Law".here)
    • From my understanding, we should abide by the result of the current judicial practice in Chinese court as it would be the future reference of the other similar cases in China.
    • In summary,
    • 1) If the photo is the actual fact of the News or enhancing the effectiveness of news, it is not protected by copyright law; no one has the right Claim copyright.
      • Examples of cases) a photo of the "36th World Journal Conference", The photos of “Fan Bingbing Wedding Photographs News"
    • 2) IF photos do not convey current events or the relevant facts are necessary, the photo is protected by copyright law,
      • The photos of "Chen Guanxi arrived in Beijing Photographs News".
    • Regarding the cases above, I believe that the photos of "conference, meeting, congress, assembly, gathering, summit, or wedding News" is not protected by copyright law, as per the judicial practice in the Chinese court. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
      • It seems that you only pick court cases preferential to your own claim. In the cases of photos depicting the 36th FIPP World Magazine Congress and Fan Bingbing in bridal dress, the court thought that the photos are reflective of current affairs and essential to convey the news on current affairs, which are directly contradictory to the case below. Author of both opinion essays I cited do not agree with this point of view.
      • Also it seems that the case on the photo depicting Edison Chen arrived in Beijing is misinterpreted above. The court said that the photo reached the threshold of originality and unessential to convey mere reports of facts even if it is reflective of current affairs. (PS. don't use Pinyin to transliterate every Chinese personal names. For some people this is a type of insult.)
      • If courts produced contradictory ruling on copyrights, we should rather exclude photos in question to prevent possible copyright complaints by the reporter who took the photo or his employer.
      • Photos on assemblies (in China) are copyrighted. Such provisions are non-existent in the Chinese copyright laws, and Wikimedia Commons administrators are unlikely to agree with this type of claim - see there.
      • Take into account that the copyright laws in the U.S. are applicable there even if the Chinese copyright law is not applicable there or the original creator of the work relinquish his copyright claims on the photo concerned in China only, since servers for Wikimedia Commons are U.S.-based. According to this press photos are generally unacceptable in Wikimedia Commons.--Spring Roll Conan ( Talk · Contributions ) 09:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

References

---

Deleted: per nomination. --Mys_721tx (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)