File talk:Tamo Daleko.ogg

Copyright status

While the recording itself is in the public domain, this digital audio file is the copyrighted property of Steven Kozobarich "Tamburitza and more". The file should be changed from "Public Domain" to "Fair Use". Otherwise the digital audio clip can be used illegally by internet music companies in their mp3 compilations. When they do this, they claim copyright over the file themselves and can make Steven Kozobarich (the actual owner) remove it from his website. --Skozobar (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

If anyone changes my copyrighted digital audio to "Public Domain" again, I'll have it removed for good. The sound recording may be public domain, but that in no way means that the audio file is. I digitized and restored the audio myself and am the copyright holder. If you want to find your own copy of this record and make a transfer you are welcome to and have every right because the recording is in the public domain. But MY audio file is NOT!--Skozobar (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I was the one who uploaded it in the first place. An analog-to-digital conversion is generally not considered a copyrightable artistic work. In these cases, the public domain label is normally used. However, due to the audio restoration work, I'm including both labels and some attribution this time. - Anonimski (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely is copyrightable! The same as any record company who publishes a CD compilation of old records owns the copyright to the audio on their CDs! I am the person who digitized this file from my own record and I am the copyright holder to this audio file. The "sound recording" is in the public domain since it dates to 1917, but the digitized audio is most certainly not since it was digitized in 2008. I really want this to be shared here, but it MUST NOT say "public domain" or any record company can put it one their CD or internet MP3 compilation and claim copyright. If they do this, they will make certain to make me take it off of my blog and my YouTube channel. Then, as sure as the sun rises, they will make YOU take it down from HERE and NOBODY will be able to listen to it unless they purchase it from iTunes or Amazon. Trust me, this has happened before. --Skozobar (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If you own a copy of this record, you can digitize it and share or sell it without worrying about Columbia or Sony claiming copyright because the "sound recording" is in the public domain. However, you can't just use the audio without permission from another company's CD compilation that they digitized and restored themselves because they own the copyright to that particular audio file. Just because the "sound recording" is old, doesn't mean the digitization is.--Skozobar (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The usage of two tags is to describe that there's a public domain status for the work independently of the record. I don't think you understand how Commons and Wikipedia work. Stuff like "this has happened before" is not really something that we have to base any edits on. If the record company claims copyright, they're wrong, and them being wrong doesn't have anything to do with this media repository. The administrators will not delete a file based on a claim that's obviously false. My suggestion is that you start a thread in "Village pump" to discuss this with some more people. I'm reverting the file page to it's previous state because it contains the correct info, and that's the only thing that's important.

And then there's an additional copyright issue with the analog-to-digital conversion and the filtering/cleanup you mentioned. Copyright is generally recognized for the artistic component of the work. Anyway, try talking with more experienced editors at "Village pump" about it, I guess it could clear things up. - Anonimski (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"This has happened before" was NOT what I was basing ANY edits on. This was mentioned to explain to you just one reason why this is important for me. Are you really saying that if Sony puts out a CD with recordings from 1922, the moment the CD hit's the shelves it is automatically in the public domain? That people can resell or share the audio from Sony's CD freely and legally?! I never said that it was legal what these internet music companies do, but it causes me so much trouble and I don't have a legal department to fill out forms to make them remove my audio from every internet sight that sells mp3s. The fact remains that this audio file belongs to me. I spend my time tracking down these records, sometimes having to purchase them at great expense (in many cases the records are the only known copies in existence), and then spend huge amounts of time restoring the audio. This is not my job and I don't make money doing it. I work 7 days a week as a delivery driver for a sandwich shop and most months I have to pull a miracle just to make ends meet and put food on my table. Even so, I don't ask for anything in return and share my audio for free. The ONLY thing I have is my ownership and exclusive rights of these audio files. But people think these things just miraculously fall out of the sky or something. Radio Television Serbia and Radio Belgrade regularly use my audio in their television and radio programs without so much as a mention of where the audio comes from. Not only is this unfair, it's ILLEGAL! I really, REALLY don't want to have this removed because I think it's very important for people to be able to find this important recording (likely the first ever made) when searching for information about this song. But I absolutely refuse to waive ownership and rights to my audio.--Skozobar (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, as this page is about the audio file (which was created in 2008), I simply cannot see any reason to have "public domain" associated with it's licensing. If you would like to add something to the summary which describes the source of the audio and other information you are more than welcome, but it has no place in the licensing section of the file. The audio file cannot be simultaneously Public Domain and Copyrighted. --Skozobar (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This talk page was mentioned on Commons:Village_pump, where comment was solicited. - Jmabel ! talk 04:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, yes, at least in the U.S., if Sony puts out a CD with recordings that were originally published on discs in 1922, then the moment the CD hits the shelves the recordings are automatically in the public domain (more precisely, they remain in the public domain), and people can resell or share the audio from Sony's CD freely and legally. They can't reproduce Sony's new artwork, liner notes, etc., but U.S. courts have held that cleaning things up like this does not create any new intellectual property rights. In the UK it's a bit different: there is a case-by-case "sweat of your brow" notion in UK copyright law that is not in U.S. law. - Jmabel ! talk 04:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I would LOVE to see your evidence for this. I simply cannot believe that the moment you make something public in the US it doesn't belong to you anymore. It's a matter of ownership, plain and simple. I own this audio file, and the fact that I've shared it doesn't change that fact one bit. Even if I digitized a record that Sony still owns the copyright to, they can only tell me that I can't share or sell it. They can't use my audio without my permission.--Skozobar (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

w:Bridgeman v. Corel.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

& as for "I own this audio file," owning a painting (for example) does not mean anything about intellectual property rights in that painting. - Jmabel ! talk 15:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• In the en:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute the gallery had digitized some public domain paintings. A Wikipedian took them from their website and uploaded them to Wikipedia. The gallery protested that they had copyright, because they digitized the images. The counterargument was that copyright is not granted from the labor invested, but rather because of creativity in original publishing, and since they were merely digitizing public domain images then they had no copyright on their digital copies. In my opinion, it would be analogous to say that if these audio recordings of public domain works are purported to be copies of the analog originals then similarly, they would remain in the public domain, and that no one can claim copyright on them.

Is there anyone here who feels that the situation is not analogous? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Subsectioning my looong comment for legibility

A pure 'digitization' would be exactly analogous, but there would be 'some point' at which an actual 'restoration' might become copyrightable... it would, however, require there to have been some degree of creative and 'non-obvious' work done, that created something recognizably different from what any other person of similar skill would have tried to produce.

The tagging of this file is incorrect in other ways, however. There are several things to consider here.

• First, and simplest, is the original recording. Sound recordings were not protected under US federal law until 1972, so the appropriate tag for the original 'recording' is {{PD-US-record}}, not {{PD-US}}. The 1917 recording was never protected by anything other than common law copyright.
• Second, there is the matter of the song itself. See [1] (which is in Serbian). The author of the song, Đorđe Marinković, did not die until 1977, and under Serbian (or French, since he apparently protected it's copyright in 1922 in Paris) law, his copyright in the song lasts until 70 years after his death, and it does not enter the public domain until 2048.

If we accept the claim that this digital restoration is indeed a new, copyrightable 'version' of the song, due to the restoration work, then it infringes upon Đorđe Marinković's copyright, and cannot be hosted on Commons (and is, indeed, illegal to distribute in any manner without permission from his heirs). This copyright has apparently been widely infringed upon over time.

If we do not accept that is restoration creates a new, unique copyright claim (and I do not think it does), and is merely a 'copy' of the public-domain 1917 recording, then it can be hosted on Commons, regardless of Skozobar's permission. As a mere copy of a public domain work, it is in the public domain.

As far as the (entirely separate) issue of modern compilations of recordings from the 1920s, the publishing companies are either not claiming copyright in the actual songs, but only in the 'compilation' (they have made a creative choice of what to include) and associated things like liner notes.... or they are simply full of crap.

For the sake of further discussion and consensus, I'm not going to mess with the licensing claim to the 'new' digital version, but I am going to fix the PD claim for the 1917 recording made on the file page, as it is patently incorrect. Revent (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Skozobar: I said above I'm 'dubious' about your restoration creating a new copyright claim for you. That is not to imply that it is not possible that it did so, or to diminish what you have done. Without hearing the original, or knowing exactly what you did, I don't think anyone can really state for certain that your efforts were not sufficiently creative to do so, or that you did not hit the narrow line between creating a new copyright claim, without actually creating a new 'version' of the song itself. That being said, you should of course be attributed as the person who did the restoration, as in some (non-US) jurisdictions you would be entitled to a copyright claim on the basis of merely your 'sweat of the brow' in creating a restored version. My comments above were mainly based on US law, and some assumptions about what work you did. I hope that you are satisfied with the way the page stands as of my edit. Unfortunately, the {{Infosplit}} template that clarifies the difference between the status of an original work and the status of a derivative is not as widely known or used as it should be. Revent (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The pre-2048 status of the song

While it's true that Đorđe Marinković managed to obtain recognition of rights to the song in France, does it really have validity and relevance for us? It was published in the US several years prior to that, in a manner that would place it (text and music) into the public domain today. - Anonimski (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The copyright in the 'song itself' is separate from the 'performance' and 'production' copyrights for a recording. The music and accompanying words are a 'work of the performing arts', as opposed to a 'sound recording'...they are defined as different things in copyright law, and actual 'words and music' (as opposed to recordings) were always eligible for copyright. We don't know when, or if, the sheet music was ever registered or published in the US (or even in France). If the actual 'music' was published in France before 1923, it's PD in the US, but if it was later then it's US copyright status depends on when. It's definitely still copyrighted in France, though, since the term there is based on the author's date of death, and so a new version of the song would need to be licensed. I doubt this could really be considered a 'new version', though. Revent (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

But for Commons, only the copyright status at the place of origin and the US status are relevant - and France is not the origin of the song. It's either Greece (based on geographical location) or Serbia (based on that the author was there as part of a unit under Serbian administration). - Anonimski (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Anonimski: France, Greece, and Serbia are all life+70 years, so which nation is the real 'source country' doesn't really affect the term... I just referred to France since that is apparently where he actually 'obtained protection' for the song. It's a bit tangential here, though, since the 1917 recording was legal, and is expired... it would really only matter if the cleaned up work could legally be considered a 'new version', which I really doubt is the case. A mere copy of a performance/recording that is now in the public domain does not require the song itself to be PD, only a 'new' performance or recording does. Revent (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)