Commons:Deletion requests/File:Conservet Deus su Re.ogg

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:Conservet Deus su Re.ogg

While the sheet music is out of copyright, there is still a recording and performance copyright for the interpretation by the band. See the non-free source. De728631 (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

 Keep, the recording is credited to 'Banda dei carabinieri; dir. Luigi Cirenei'. Spotify confirms this attribution.[1] Luigi Cirenei died in 1947,[2] and the low technical quality is consistent with a recording made before 1947. Banda dei carabinieri indicates a police band, so {{PD-ItalyGov}} is probably valid. The principal author died over 70 years ago, so the recording is public domain under the 'Life + 70 years' rule. {{PD-Italy-audio}} also appears to be applicable. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Those are some good points and barring any other compelling copyright concerns, I am now inclined to recommend a keep to the closing admin. De728631 (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

My main concern is that since it was re-released in 2011, this may have received audio restoration. While in the US such restoration may be still in the public domain, I'm not sure if it's the case in Italy. As I commented earlier,

I also believed that since it was recorded before relatively noise-free recording mediums were invented that they took significant effort to clean-up this audio material. Should this be removed from Commons due to this?

I would incline not to keep this unless that it is proven that this is a straight digitalization or if these kinds of restoration is not protected under Italian law. - 2001:4453:53E:500:3028:13FD:75D5:B44C 11:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

There was a major improvement in the quality of sound recording when electrical recording was introduced in 1925, see w:en:History of sound recording. Recordings made in the 1930s and 1940s had sound quality that was broadly similar to the movies of that era. This recording probably had no restoration beyond a high-cut filter to reduce the prominence of noise, broadly similar to adjusting the treble control on a hifi amplifier. This would not introduce a new copyright. Also, it is unclear that restoration work that is intended to restore a work to its original state would create a new copyright. This could apply to many of the files in Category:Restored paintings. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Delete unless the year of publication can be shown to be earlier than 1923. Per the Hirtle chart, any recordings published in 1923 or later are still under copyright in the U.S. Toohool (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  I assume you mean 1927 – the "before 1923 or 95 years ago" has changed from meaning the former to mean the latter. It seems that he became director of the band in 1925. {{PD-Italy-audio}} gives 50 years, so for the URAA date it would need to have published before 1946 (?). For {{PD-ItalyGov}} before 1976 suffices, and it is unlikely that such a recording would not have been published soon after it was made. I don't think the recording was copyrighted in the USA. –LPfi (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it's 1923. The 95-year term never applied to sound recordings. Sound recordings before 1946 get a 100-year term, per the CLASSICS Act. This is shown on the Hirtle chart under the "Sound recordings" section. Toohool (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. As this work was published outside of the United States without following the formalities of U.S. copyright law, it never had any copyright in the United States prior to the passage of the URAA. In relation to foreign works, the Hatch–Goodlatte Act can only apply to those whose copyrights were restored under section 104A, which Toohool has misread. That section clearly recognizes (subsection (h)(6)(C)(ii)) that it applies to pre-1972 sound recordings. It also clearly requires that the work in question be copyrighted in the country of origin. As the work was in the public domain when the URAA came into effect, the work is in the public domain in the United States, as well, despite the incorrect statement on the Commons copy of the Hirtle chart. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Are you saying that the CLASSICS Act has some exception for foreign works, or somehow only applies to works that were subject to URAA restoration? Where are you getting that from? I'm not seeing anything like that in 17 USC § 1401. Toohool (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Toohool: “somehow only applies to works that were subject to URAA restoration”—yes. That act could only apply to works which are copyrightable. This work is not, because its copyright was not restored by the URAA. The URAA clearly applies to pre-1972 sound recordings, so for a foreign work (such as this) to be subject to title II of the Hatch–Goodlatte Act, in must have had its copyright restored under the URAA. And for a work to be a “restored work” under the URAA, it must be copyrighted in the country of origin, which this recording is not. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: "That act could only apply to works which are copyrightable." Where exactly are you getting that from? I don't see any such requirement in in section 1401. Toohool (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Toohool: That’s not specific to any act, that’s just a basic premise of copyright law. The entirety of the Copyright Act (title 17, U.S.C.) is predicated on a work being copyrighted—for any provision of the Copyright Act to apply, a work must have some copyright. There are two types of copyrights: “native” copyrights (under § 102) and “restored” copyrights (under § 104A). The Hatch–Goodlatte Act does not create a new type of copyright; it merely modifies the length of copyright terms for a class of works (namely, pre-1972 sound recordings). The modified terms set out in title II thus can only apply to one of the two types of works I mentioned above. This work is undisputedly a foreign work, and has no “native” copyright. Thus, for this work to be copyrighted in the United States, it must have had its copyright restored under the URAA. This work was in the public domain in Italy on the applicable URAA date; thus, its copyright was not restored by the URAA, and the modified terms set forth in title II of the Hatch–Goodlatte Act cannot apply to it. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Sorry but that's not right. The plain text of section 1401 is clear that it applies to all pre-1972 recordings. The mere fact that it is located in Title 17 does not limit its applicability. The titles of the U.S. Code are just buckets to keep the law somewhat organized, they have no legal effect.

Your interpretation would completely defeat the purpose of the law, which was to bring the normalcy of federal copyright protection to old recordings that were not under federal copyright at the time. These recordings were previously covered by the patchwork system of state copyright laws, which caused lots of problems.

Here is a guide from the Library of Congress that gives an in-depth look at the motivation for the law and its effects. Note in particular the discussion on pp. 45–47 that points out that allowing the MMA to apply at all to URAA-restored works was not well thought out, as it created ambiguities by giving these works two forms of protection with different terms. Toohool (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• Toohool: My interpretation of copyright law is not dependent on the fact that the law is codified under one title. However, in that sense you are also incorrect; the titles of the U.S. Code are more than mere regulatory “buckets.” In addition, title 17 has been enacted as positive law, further defeating your position. That the Hatch–Goodlatte Act was intended to bring together under the regime of federal law, copyrights in pre-1972 sound recordings previously protected my various state laws, I do not deny; but this further agrees with my interpretation, that title II of the Act does not apply to foreign works absent restoration under the URAA, as the URAA is the source of copyright for those works. As to the “plain text,” you misinterpret it. The section’s reference to pre-1972 sound recordings can, of necessity, only refer to those which are copyrightable. Certain recordings, such as the Edison Records, are not copyrightable (in that case owing to section 105). Similarly, foreign works which were not granted a restored copyright by the URAA can have no term of protection in the United States; thus, the statement in section 1401 cannot apply to them. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Citation needed. This whole convoluted chain of reasoning is all in your head. Toohool (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per the precautionary principle.

For the Italian side: The Carabinieri band should be a state institution, so its works should be covered by {{PD-ItalyGov}}. The protection term is 20 years from first publication. We're not given the year of this performance, but we know the following: The recording cannot have been made later than 1947 because of Luigi Cirenei's death in that year, and it probably was not made before 1925 when Cirenei became head of the band. The recording apparently comes from the archive of public broadcaster RAI (per the CD sleeve seen at the Youtube source), so this performance was probably recorded by them and might have been broadcast as well. I'm not exactly sure how publication is defined by Italian law. The US does not consider a radio or TV broadcast to be publication, but other countries do. If we assume that either a public performance or a broadcast of the recording happened at some point in the 1925 to 1947 period and it was considered publication, the Italian term of protection would have run to not later than the end of 1967, and the recording would have been out of copyright in Italy on the URAA date of January 1, 1996. This is probably the most likely scenario, but because I'm lacking the pertinent information I cannot rule out first publication at a later date, perhaps even in 2011 when the CD this was taken from apparently came out. In that case, the recording would be still protected by copyright even in Italy.

For US copyright: If the Italian term of protection had already expired on the URAA date, its US copyright was not restored. That seems likely, but given the lack of knowledge of first publication, we don't really know if that is the case. So the recording's US copyright might or might not have been restored. If restored, we don't know when the 95 year term starts because we don't know the year of first publication. If first published 1978 through 28 February 1989 while NOT being in the PD in its source country on the URAA date (which would be the case here) or if first published on 1 March 1989 or later, the term would be 120 years from creation (because even for a 1947 creation, that term would be shorter than a 95 year term from first publication).

For US protection by the MMA/CLASSICS/CPAA act: From what I gathered, 17 U.S. Code Chapter 14 is not copyright, even if it works the same way. So any US copyright for a foreign sound recording that was restored by the URAA would exist in parallel to the protection of the sound recording by the MMA. Because the MMA protection is not copyright, but a separate kind of protection, I don't think the claim that the MMA "modifies the length of copyright terms for a class of works" is true. Which means the MMA does apply to foreign sound recordings, whether they are copyrighted in the US or not. The term of the MMA protection (per COM:HIRTLE) would depend on the date of first publication (which we don't know): 100 years if published 1923 to 1946, 110 years if published 1947 to 1956, until 14 February 2067 if published 1957 to 14 February 1972.

If first published 15 February 1972 through 28 February 1989 while also being in the PD in its source country on the URAA date, the recording would be subject to US state common law protection and enter the public domain on 15 February 2067.

Summary: Because we don't know the actual date of first publication, it seems likely that this is in the PD in Italy, but it is not certain. The recording might or might not have a US copyright, either restored by the URAA or directly if published at some later date, all depending on the date of first publication. The recording is almost certainly protected by the MMA (or US state common law protection) in the US (unless it was first published on 1 March 1989 or later, but then it would have a US copyright for 120 years from creation). So per the precautionary principle, I've deleted the file.

As for restoration: If first published in Italy 1925 through 1975, the Italian copyright would have expired, and the US copyright would not have been restored. So we'd have to consider the MMA protection: either 100 or 110 years after publication, or 15 February 2067. If first published in 1976 or later, there would be the Italian term of 20 years from first publication (since we know of a 2011 publication, that would expire no later than the end of 2031) plus a US copyright term of 120 years from creation (which in this case is shorter than a 95 years term from first publication) to a date between the end of 2045 (if created in 1925) to the end of 2067 (if created in 1947). So the earliest year a restoration seems possible is 2026 (if the first publication was in 1925), the latest is 2068 (if the first publication was after 1975 and the year of creation was 1947). --Rosenzweig τ 13:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)