Pogovor o sliki:Tito2.jpg

Manjkata vir/avtor in licenca. LP, --Klemen Kocjančič 10:59, 2 jul. 2005 (CEST)

Mimogrede, vir je bil ves čas naveden.

Sicer pa je tukaj zanimiv razgovor iz en:Image talk:Tito.marshall.post-war.J.J..jpg. --AndrejJ 09:17, 26 september 2005 (CEST)

copyright in .yu

You wrote:

The same image was created in the former (socialist) Yugoslavia and as such does not enjoy any copyright protection.

I don't believe this is correct. Do you have a reference as to the (non-)existence of authorship laws in former Yugoslavia? --Joy [shallot] 22:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Reply:

Former (socialist) Yugoslavia did not poses such laws or agreements that pertained to works in the country. The whole concept was considered alien and contradictory to the socialist (i.e. communist) idea. As far as providing any evidence, I duly ask you to provide evidence to the contrary.

I googled and found a clear reference to the existence of:

• Zakon o autorskom pravu ("Službeni list SFRJ", broj 19/74, 24/86 i 21/90)

That's from http://www.informator.co.yu/informator/1999/T3_399.html

Granted, it may not mean that photos were protected as author's works, but it at least means that we would need to review the language of the 1974, 1986 and 1990 laws to see what exactly they think is the right of an author. --Joy [shallot] 11:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

P.S. - I know see you are from Croatia, considering you might have lived in those times I suspect you are aware that conditions and economic relationships did not require such laws. What there was was in regard to foreign agreements and it mainly pertained to works by foreign authors. The fact that there were no private mass production/publishing enterprises precluded the need of such contingencies as copyrights in a Western sense or understanding of the word today. There were however regulations that enabled one or other state agency to have absolute right in publishing certain information, however this did not constitute or was not regulated as ownership since theoretically 'the people' owned everything. Also any rights to any works tended to be protected via contractual obligations and not laws per se.

---

However, Zagreb Film, Jugoton etc did exist in SFRY, and I am pretty sure they had some legal basis to protect their authors. It's possible that this was post-1974, but it's also possible that it was applied retroactively. I'd really have to see the text of the old law to state anything with certainty. --Joy [shallot] 11:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Reply:

At that time (and place) they didn't have the conception of our understanding of copyright rules. Such issues if they even came-up for dispute were resolved based on contractual obligations according to existing laws in the court of law that had the jurisdiction. But there were no (general) laws against reproducing or copying authored items or for protection of private (i.e. individual) ownership, so any infringement could only be direct based on a contract, and not universal. Essentially there were no laws directly protecting Intellectual Property in SFRY.

Also for a modern (i.e. Western), and evolving, understanding of copyrights see: http://creativecommons.org/ and http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002852.shtml

Image copyright

I see the above discussion, and I wanted to confirm with you that the law does say that they are public domain. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 05:46, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)