Jump to content

Talk:Constitutional Council (Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

@Diannna I find it kind of weird that a good bunch of this article was removed because the Sahrawi Constitution you linked is copyrighted? Since there's no publicly available information on the SADR's copyright law and all of the SADR's institutions are based on Algeria, Algerian copyright laws deem that legal texts are not to be copyrighted. There are several full copies of the Sahrawi constitution on Wikipedia, including on the article treating the constitution.

[CC: @يوسف قناوة] Tidjani Saleh (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tidjani Saleh made a good argument here. As he indicated, the Wikipedia article on the Sahrawi constitution is largely composed of the constitution text. Can you provide any source that states that the Constitution of the Sahrawi Republic is in fact copyrighted? @Diannaa
يوسف قناوة (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is a separate entity. There's no reason for Algerian law to apply. And you've got it backwards; under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So the material automatically enjoys copyright protection unless the authors have released it to the public domain or published it under a Creative Commons license. — Diannaa (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, all laws, statutes, proclamations, court rulings, etc. are in the public domain. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa Wikipedia has used the "applying a copyright law of a previously ruling or tied to entity" to make sure the copyright is properly covered (Mauritania had used the French copyright laws until we passed one of our own in 2012). Spain's (the previous ruling entity) copyright law also releases legal texts in the public domain, and as we assume the SADR has no copyright legislation currently, either Spain's or Algeria's would apply. Even Morocco covers the same case ("official texts of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature" aren't protected by their legislation).
I see no reason for a Constitution to be covered by copyright, especially in the SADR and assuming all other alternative legislations from neighbouring or disputing jurisdictions. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Commons has summaries of copyright law in various countries. commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Western Sahara is the applicable page. It states that the copyright law of Morocco would likely apply. In Morocco the term of copyright is 70 years. — Diannaa (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Commons copyright rules regarding Western Sahara/SADR state:

... The de facto position would appear to be that Moroccan copyright law applies to works from Western Sahara, or at least to works created west of the berm.

And we're dealing with a work that originated east of the berm (i.e., not under Morocco's jurisdiction). يوسف قناوة (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an applicable page. The applicable page would be WP:NUSC, which reads in part:
While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries. For example works of the US federal government are in the public domain in the United States and widely used on Wikipedia, but they may not be in the public domain outside the United States. For example, we accept content that is public domain in the US because it was published before 1928 with Template:PD-US-expired-abroad even if it is not public domain anywhere else in the world
It's irrelevant what you think may be copyrighted elsewhere and all laws are in the public domain in the United States. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your description of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic as a "separatist" state is factually erroneous and partisan. The article briefly says that it is a partially recognized state and a full member of the AU that has territorial disputes with Morocco over Western Sahara, a non-self-governing territory. It was proclaimed by the Polisario Front, the governing body that is considered by the UN to be the legitimate representative of the Sahrawis, in February 1976, shortly after Spain relinquished its authority over it per the Madrid Accords.
Terms such as "separatist" and cohyponyms are usually used by pro-Makhzen sources.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ https://en.hespress.com/69551-south-africa-doubles-down-on-support-for-separatist-polisario-front-during-brics-conference.html
  2. ^ https://www.mapnews.ma/en/actualites/politics/algeria-plans-change-structures-polisario-separatist-militias-news-site
  3. ^ https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2023/03/354399/morocco-deeply-regrets-south-africa-algerias-financing-of-polisarios-separatist-agenda
  • Regarding the Constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, the article contains paragraphs from the 1999 constitution since 2008.
Another notable thing is that the Proclamation of the First Government of the SADR, another work of the Polisario Front, is in Wikisource, and therefore it is in the public domain. @Diannaa
يوسف قناوة (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC) يوسف قناوة (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisource is not a reliable source for copyright information, because it's a wiki. There's a lot of material posted there that is actually copyright and should not be there. — Diannaa (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Constitutional_Council_(Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic)&oldid=1190844311"