Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zdravljica.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:Zdravljica.ogg

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Slovenia: performers' rights. Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the Slovene Army Orchestra is a national instutution, making the work "public information" which may be reused commercially (under ZDIJZ). — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Evidence? Of course, the anthem is "public information", but this specific performance is not. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

What makes you think it isn't? The Slovene Army Orchestra is a state institution and works by state institutions may be reused commercially under the abovementioned law. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The Central Catalogue of Information of Public Character does not include it.[1] --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Generalštab Slovenske vojske is included, to which the units (including the orchestra) are subordinate. Also, the recording was posted on the MORS' website. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The orchestra is part of the Generalštab, but does this mean that its work is copyrighted to the Generalštab (or MORS)? Per the copyright act, the performers authorise one from themselves to represent them in regard to copyright.[2] Per [3]: "When acquiring information from third parties, due care has to be given to the protection of information copyright. When the body faces the decision to reveal a copyrighted document, such documents may not be copied, though the applicant may still freely consult the information on the spot."

This same applies also to the OTRS permission given by MORS (ticket:2007121410015342), where the representative simply stated: "As the property of the content published online is not regulated by specific Slovenian legislation we grant you permission to use the images and all other content from mors.si and slovenskavojska.si with the acknowledgment of the author or source if the author is not given." It is clear that the content published online is regulated by the Slovene copyright legislation. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 14:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it means that its work is copyrighted by the Generalštab (or MORS), because the orchestra isn't a legal entity by itself, but an organizational unit subordinate to the Generalštab - definitely not some "third party". Check this record, for example - it says "Organizacija: MORS - Ministrstvo za obrambo RS", and "Založnik: Ministrstvo za obrambo". — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

An organisation that was established in 1996 and has 58 employed people [4] is not a legal entity? How can it employ people if it is not a legal entity? By the way, the copyright law (Article 119) does not even demand that a group of performers is a legal entity in any other way than that they elect a representative. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you even read my previous comment in full? Its work is copyrighted by MORS. This isn't some band of randomly gathered musicians who at some point said "hey, let's get serious, we'll democratically elect one of us to represent us". This is the army. It's beside the point, but I'm quite sure that the members of the orchestra get their paychecks with "MORS" on top, not "Orkester Slovenske vojske" - you can ask User:Žiga if you're interested. The constructive thing to do here would be to write an e-mail to MORS and simply ask them whom the copyright of performance belongs to, if you're not convinced. Your pseudo-legalese, on the other hand, is not constructive. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've read your comment in full. I don't completely agree with your argumentation (actually more "pseudo-legalese" than mine, because I've only stated what is and what is not in the act and expressed my doubt about some of your badly sourced inferences), but you're correct, it will be bettter to send them an e-mail than to argue here.

The file could also possibly be covered as an "official work" per [5] (pg. 28), which states: "Although the law based on the example of the Berne Convention discusses only official texts, in the frame of official jurisdictions other categories of authored works also often appear as parts of the official text, its annex or independently (e.g. urban planning maps in spatial files; drawings of traffic signs; drawings of the national coat-of-arms, of municipal coats of arms, of flags and the music of the national anthem; sketches and plans from the patent file after the official publication of the patent). In its purpose these works do not differ from official texts, therefore it should be regarded that they are exempt of copyright law too." However, it is not completely clear if this also refers to performances or only to the notes of the anthem, which have been published in the Official Gazette,[6] because it is mentioned alongside the drawings of the coats of arms and flags, which have also been published in the gazette. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't read your comments, but I think national anthems(!!!) are recognized as an official state symbol and are as such exempt from copyright protection. As regards to performance itself: If I am not wrong this file was obtained from a governmental website (military orchestra), and their work is either in public domain or Wikimedia CC compatible licence. We even have a template for such cases - PD-MORS (on sl wiki) and {{MORS}} (on Commons). --Miha (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

According to Trampuž (Copyright and the Related Rights Act with Commentary. GV. 1997.), the text and the music of the national anthem qualify as official works, because they have been published in the Official Gazette.[7] However, the copyright is treated in the copyright act separately from the related rights. Whereas the work is not copyrighted, the performers' rights still have to be considered. The recording itself has not been published as an official work. I've sent an e-mail request about the copyright holder on recordings of the Slovene Army Orchestra to the MORS (Ministry of Defence) several days ago, but have not received any reply, which means in my opinion they don't have a clue. The MORS has just reused a third-party work. As it is evident e.g. from this or this page ("contracting authority: Slovene Army Orchestra"), the orchestra presents itself as a legal entity, working under the auspice of the Ministry, and there is no evidence of an exclusive transfer of the related rights between the two entities. I may go to find some CD or DVD with the music of the orchestra, but in general, I have no reason to assume otherwise. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The catalogues don't prove that the Orchestra is a legal entity, but merely that its name is used as a trademark (see the logos). On the other hand, there are at least two bibliographic entries on the MORS website (1, 2) which clearly state MORS as a corresponding organization. I believe such specific references leave no doubt about copyright. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I seriously doubt these bibliographic entries state MORS is the copyright holder. It states "glasba in priredba, composed and arranged by Jani Šalamun" and "[besedilo, text Ljubo Vošnjak ; foto, photo Fantasy d.o.o., Foto Bobo]". The deduction that the copyright holder on the music, the text, and the photos is MORS just because MORS is stated in the field 'Organisation' is an unfounded interpretation. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Stating the corresponding organization is as specific as it gets, short only of saying "© MORS". But this is again getting tangential to the topic. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The corresponding organisation merely organised the project, but individual authors retained the copyright on their work; there is no evidence of any transfer of copyright. See also these entries: in all cases, the responsibility / author item states "Orkester slovenske vojske", not MORS. For example, in this case, if the copyright holder would be MORS, the entry would state this and would not mention only RTV Slovenia and the orchestra. Also COBISS 8300803, the stated 'author' is Orkester slovenske vojske. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The Slovene army orcherstra ("Orkester slovenske vojske") is an organisational entity within MORS, so unless it is stated otherwise, the same rules apply as for the parent organisation. The national anthem, which is made available on their website is an official record which is used for various international sports events and can be performed/played on every occasion unless it is used to express hatred for Slovenia or directed against certain groups of people. --Miha (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Citations needed. The above-mentioned source on official works does not mention that this recording would be an official work, and the remaining linked sources cite the Slovene Army Orchestra, not MORS, as the author / the responsible entity. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Your doubt would be justifiable in any other setting, but this is the army. The orchestra is headquartered in a barracks, its members are soldiers and it is a unit within the organizational structure of the General Staff (here is one reference). — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there some special rule about the army in the copyright act that I have missed? Every military unit has its commander, who represents it officially. We need a specific source stating that the copyrights have been transfered from the orchestra to the ministry, otherwise this is pure speculation that goes against the sources cited above. As to the employment mentioned above, there are plenty of sources that state "he is employed by the Slovene Army Orchestra" (not MORS). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The laws state principles, not every possible case. We already concluded that the Orchestra is a unit within the organizational structure of the General Staff. And if the law (article 39) clearly states that all units are subordinate to the General Staff, with its Chief of Staff clearly specified as the responsible for the work of all subordinates (article 44), then it's you who has to prove with a specific source that copyright is treated differently. To remind you, the Central Catalogue of Information of Public Character does include the General Staff.

By the way, your sources say "employed in the orchestra" (not "by the orchestra"), in the same sense as "employed in a barracks". How is this relevant is beyond me. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I'll try to get a more specific source to confirm this reasoning. It could be that this work is also free per the following: military persons are public employees.[8] Per [9] (pg. 34), at least the information commissioner has published the opinion that the works by public employees are free. However, the opinion of the commissioner has been designated as 'theological': "The information commissioner comes with a teological explanation to the argumentation that access to the works created by public employees is free." Does 'theological' mean that her opinion is badly founded? In any case, the source seems to give support to this statement rather than dispute it. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There is another problem to be resolved: the music has been published by Stanko Premrl (d. 1965), and it differs from the one in the Official Gazette. Whereas the gazette contains a simple monophonic melody,[10] the orchestra performs the polyphonic version. The monophonic version is considered an official work, because it has been published as part of an official document; the polyphonic has not been. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Even so, this recording was taken and made as part of this entity's official duties. As such it is a work of the Slovene government (its organisational unit), and according to 9th article of the Slovene copyright act this is exempt from copyright. --Miha (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Therefore, the recording is not protected by the related rights, however the original polyphonic melody is still copyrighted. The orchestra has recorded a number of copyrighted songs as "part of its official duties", including all that are cited at COBISS 229947136. This does not make these melodies free of copyright. The Information Commissioner has clearly stated that "When acquiring information from third parties, due care has to be given to the protection of information copyright. When the body faces the decision to reveal a copyrighted document, such documents may not be copied, though the applicant may still freely consult the information on the spot."[11] Per [12] According to the COBISS link, the melody may have even been arranged by Jože Privšek, who died in 1998. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It is still anthem - and solely because an orchestra can not perform it otherwise as it did here, it had to be adapted slightly. But I don't think this qualifies as a separate work. The melody is still same; i think we should ask an experienced musician for his opinion. --Miha (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Per Commons:Derivative works: "Derivative works, according to the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, Section 101, are defined as follows: "A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization ... [....] As opposed to an exact copy or minor variation of a work (e.g. the same book with a different title), which does not create a new copyright, a derivative work creates a new copyright on all original aspects of the new version." --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There are good reasons to believe that this specific case (national anthem) is an exception to the guideline you've stated. This version of anthem is performed on all public national holidays (such as day of independence and unity, statehood day, etc.) and official sport events. It is still work by Stanko Premrl - the same setting of a poem to music. --Miha (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the relation. Why could an anthem not be copyrighted if it's a work by a "third party" (S. Premrl, d. 1965), not a government body? For similar examples, see e.g. [13], [14] and particularly [15]. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You are driving us in circles. Yerpo has already made clear that anthem is an official work and as such exempt from copyright issues. --Miha (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yerpo and me have only come to the agreement that most probably, there are no performers' rights on the recording in the source country, because it has been recorded by the public employees. This has nothing to do with the copyright on the melody, which differs from the one that has been officially published in the Official Gazette. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You must be deaf claiming that these two melodies are not same. MORS published is as a free artwork, and it is a trustworthy institution. --Miha (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The difference is apparent: the official one is monophonic, the other one is polyphonic; the official one is in B-flat major, the other one is in C-major etc. For comparison: [16][17] (pg. 20). MORS can't publish third party artwork as a free artwork. The Information Commissioner has clearly stated that "When acquiring information from third parties, due care has to be given to the protection of information copyright." I'm already repeating myself now, so I guess it's not me who is deaf. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Both versions of same melody (a simple monophonic one, one for orchestra, and one for choir) are written by the same composer and the law only states that his version is to be performed on official events. According to the law (already stated above), we are free to perform anthem and there is a certain degree of freedom how it can be performed, which however is not covered by copyright but by performers rights. So various versions are performed on various official events [18] [19] [20]. The version we host on Commons is one from MORS (its organisational unit Orkester slovenske vojske, to be more precise), but as already stated above it is exempt from copyright and related affairs as part of official duties. --Miha (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I sent an email to the Intellectual property office of the Slovene government to get an official answer to clarify what is copyright status of national anthem. --Miha (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think that you've asked the wrong question: instead, you should have asked whether the orchestral version of the national anthem is copyrighted, because only the simplified and transpositioned choral one has been published in the act, and Article 5 of the act [21] states that the choral version is the national anthem. The act (Article 20) also states that the anthem may be freely performed only in non-commercial official settings. I still fail to see per what source the notation of the orchestral version is covered by the performers' rights and copyrighted to the MORS. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I asked precisely this question - about variations to the versions published in the official gazette.

[...] zanima me kakšen je avtorsko pravni položaj himne? Ali je kot uradni državni simbol oproščena avtorske zaščite in se jo lahko vključno z uglasbitvijo smatra kot javno last? V uradnem listu je bila namreč objavljena zgolj preprosta verzija in za to je mogoče sklepati, da se v skaldu z zakonodajo smatra kot javno delo, objavljeno v uradnem glasilu, in kot tako oproščeno avtorske zaščite. V praksi pa se tako na državnih proslavah, kot podelitvah športnih nagrad uporabjlajo druge različice Premrlove uglasbitve (zborovksa različica, orkesterska razlicica) - ali je treba v tem primeru še vedno spoštovati določila zakona o avtorskih pravicah, ki delo smatra za avtorsko zaščiteno, kjer je za objavo in reproduciranje vsake kopije (v tem primeru melodije/notnega zapisa) treba pridobiti soglasje dedičev, glede na to da skladateljeva dela še niso v javni lasti, saj od njegove smrti še ni poteklo 70 let. [...]

--Miha (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

And answer: "Glasba in besedilo državne himne spadata med uradna besedila v smislu 9/1 tč. 2 ZASP. Gre torej za stvaritev, ki ne uživa avtorskopravnega varstva. Razlog za to je zagotoviti njihovo prosto in poljubno reproduciranje." It says, that text and arrangments of national anthem are exempt from copyright protetcions, according to the ZASP (9/1. article 2), because it should be guaranteed that it is possible to freely reproduce it -> everything is ok with this file. --Miha (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you sent this to the OTRS so that we may verify the reply as a) we have to be sure that it is the full reply, b) there is no information about who wrote this message, and c) it goes against the Act Regulating the Coat-of-Arms, Flag and Anthem of the Republic of Slovenia and the Flag of the Slovene Nation (Article 20), which states that "It is not allowed to perform the anthem for commercial advertising or designation of services."[22] --Eleassar ^(t/p) 16:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 06:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)