Images and Media ( inactive) | ||||
|
Open Unassessed ( inactive) | |||||||
|
is this Image:Silvershiner.gif a good because? Is there a better way to document this? Pdbailey 03:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going over the images uploaded by one user who didn't care much where an image was from so long as it was on a United States Government (USG) server. In deed, some were clearly copyrighted (and licensed by the USG under a license wikipedia would not accept), some were public domain and clearly labeled. The set that vexes me are those that appear on a USG server without any notice. Can I consider these to be PD? Pdbailey 13:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have any information on Public Domain in Greece? If so, please create a tag, and place it on Image:Greek.destroyer.bas.georgios.jpg. Thanks. tiZom (2¢) 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Can someone help me with this. I can't figure out why the bot keeps tagging it. I used a pre-1923 PD tag and then removed the warnings and the bot keeps putting them back. Long levi 07:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: A PARALLEL DISCUSSION CAN BE FOUND AT Wikipedia_talk:Public_domain#Another_PD_Template_added.
I have added {{ PD-EU-no author disclosure}} to the page, with related category. The 1993 EU copyright directive explicitly directs that an author (e.g. photographer) must disclose her or his identity in conjunction with publishing an image in order to obtain copyright protection for 70years p.m.a.. Lacking such public disclosure of the identity of the author of a photograph (the photographer or assignee of the photographer's rights) in conjunction with its publication, the author's right to claim copyright lapses 70 years after the first publication of the image. Presently this would be all photos published prior to August, 1937 (70 years ago), but published without an explicit public disclosure of who was the photographer. See Article 1, §§1-4 of the 1993 EU copyright directive. ... Kenosis 13:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
For the present, the category is Category:Public domain images no longer eligible for claim of authorship. No doubt this will get discussed as it goes along, and if necessary, adapted or moved to another title according to what the experience turns out to be with the template and the category. ... Kenosis 15:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
With respect to the recently placed demand for concrete non-web-based proof of publication data, and the demand for the uploader to provide additional reasoning and particular forms of citations
added here: I removed the imbedded flag
this diff and the two that follow for the following non-exhastive set of reasons.
:First, the reasoning is already disclosed in the template. Asking for the "reasoning for the reasoning" prior to seeing the image and examining the required disclosure of the source is excessive, and none of the other standard templates presently do so.
:Second, a demand in advance for concrete proof of absence on an image claimed by the uploader to have been published prior to 1938 without visible claim of authorship is unreasonable. A reasonable search, appropriate source information, whether web-based or otherwise, is typically quite adequate for PD-50, PD-70 and PD-100, and, unless the overall approach is changed wrt all the general templates, it should be adequate for this template as well.
:Third, the
presumed good faith statement by the uploader is typically applied across the board with these templates, at least as of today. If the application of the template is deemed to be unreasonable, there are convenient deletion options already in place such as the CFSDs and IfDs, available to be brought to bear to quickly correct such issues.
:Fourth, the expectation in the inserted flag (the red triangular "nuvola" sign) demonstrates an absence of good faith, a complete misinterpretation of
WP:VER (read it again, please) and I think merely attempts to make quick work of deletions prior to seeing good reason to propose such deletions with respect to particular images. Even the PD-100 template, which could easily be applied to images as early as the mid-19th Century, doesn't make this kind of negative presumption at the outset. There are other reasons to avoid an imbedded flag on this template too, but I don't have time to go into them. Suffice it to say that there are already processes in place to deal with unreasonable or questionable uses of this template.
....... I think, though, that it might be extremely useful to set up some additional "small text" in the template inviting anyone who has additional source information, whether supportive of or contradictory to the assertion of "no public authorship" for a pre-1938 photo, to make a note providing additional evidence on the image page. ...
Kenosis 13:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The only thing I still don't understand is the interaction with US law. Can works which are in the public domain in their home country in Europe still be copyrighted in the United States? Haukur 16:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
See, e.g., this synopsis, in which the category currently under discussion is incorporated into "WORKS PUBLISHED OUTSIDE THE US" > "Works Published Abroad Before 1978 Without Compliance with US Formalities" > "1923 through 1977" > "In the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996". AFAIK, works in the public domain in their home country that were published over 70 years ago where the photograph wasn't attributed to a photographer (the "author"), which have become public domain after 1996, would also be in the public domain in the U.S. ... Kenosis 16:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added this template to the art section, because it is applicable. If there's any problem, please remove it and discuss here. Tyrenius 03:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have a question about images from old movie trailers. If I take a screenshot from a movie trailer of a movie that came out before 1977, is it in the public domain? Or is it for movie trailers from before 1964? And does it matter if a person's name is on the screen with them or would it be copyrighted as a screenshot from the movie if there was no name? For instance, if the photo in Rosalind Russell's article didn't have her name on it in the trailer and instead was a shot from the movie but still part of the trailer, would I have to tag that as a copyrighted screenshot or would it still count as public domain because it was in the trailer?
Hopefully that question made sense, and any help would be appreciated!
Ilampsurvivor5 01:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a place to address translation of copyright tags? On ro: there's a ro:Template:DP-oferit which as far as I can tell means PD was offered by the owner. Until the translation is in place, the Move-to-commons assistant correctly refuses to operate on the tagged image. LeadSongDog ( talk) 18:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a tag specific for diagrams in Patents? According to WP:PD :
Descriptions (including diagrams) in patent applications in the U.S. are "published into the public domain" by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office [2]. Portions may contain the non-obligatory notice of copyright © or mask work Ⓜ protection, but the patent applicant must state in the text of the description that the owner of the rights in the protected part agrees to allow anyone to make facsimile reproductions of those portions of the description, but otherwise reserves all rights 37 CFR § 1.71(e).
Thanks.
Dspark76 (
talk) 13:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Say I own an original drawing by some famous author. Can I put this in public domain and upload the image to wikipedia and attach the public domain tag? Let us assume this image has already been published in magazines. Vincent Lextrait ( talk) 13:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I ran across this template while attempting to clear some of the backlog at Category:Category needed. Has this been approved or should I bring it up at WP:TfD? — Ashanda ( talk) 15:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This template is empty and it is listed as a copyright tag. It should be created or removed from the list.-- Sdrtirs ( talk) 08:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
What template should be used for works that were published in the public domain to begin with, or published as "anti-copyright"? Are these the same thing?
For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anrchcydinop.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Evasion_cover.jpg
These are covers of books both published as anti-copyright. Right now they both have non-free templates.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-copyright —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnissley ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm planning to make and add PD-court under PD-USGov - "the public record of any court case is in the public domain". This page has no entry for such records. I believe all court filings are public records, and therefore public domain (for example, all the court filings posted on thesmokinggun.com). Evidence: "the public record of any court case [is] in the public domain" according to
public domain, with a
citation. --
Elvey (
talk) 23:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
more info - found some common and case law - while it's all explicitly about ACCESS, not COPYRIGHT, it access is meaningless without the ability to publish the public record: --Elvey
A. The Public Has a Presumptive Right of Access to Litigation-Related Documents
The right of public access to litigation-related documents has three sources: the rules of discovery, Federal common law, and the First Amendment. Each of these sources provides important reasons for unsealing the Sealed Documents.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]t is well-established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing cases). This presumption may be overridden only when there is “good cause” for protecting documents from disclosure. See id. (citing Rule 26(c)).
...
When a document is not merely a fruit of discovery but has become a part of the court record, the common law’s “strong presumption in favor of access” to court documents comes into play. Hagestad v. Tragessser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995); see also San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102. The United States Supreme Court recognized this common law right of access in Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Although Nixon involved records in a criminal case, the courts of appeals have uniformly held that the right of access applies to the records of both civil and criminal cases. See San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102.
- - MOTION TO UNSEAL RECORDS IN RYAN V. CARL May 13, 2002
This is an interesting topic, but has wandered far, far off field. First, you cannot confuse rights to access a document, which applies to many public records, with rights to copy, adapt, modify and amend a document, which is what true 'public domain' status denotes. Bottom line rule: whatever rights of access might exist to court records, the vast, vast majority of court records are NOT in the public domain. Copyright in them is owned by the person who authored the document, same as in any other situtaion. Also, this discussion repeatedly confuses judicial opinions - authored by judges and issued by courts - which are never subject to copyright with court 'records', such as briefs and pleadings, which are usually authored by private lawyers and published by them (when filed with the court). These are NOT public domain documents, as the author retains all of his or her rights of authorship in the work. DAJ Hilton, -- 91.106.63.204 ( talk) 21:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I was unsure whether PD-laws in fact applied to the 'Rockefeller' image, so I did some research. I found the answer; here's my data and conclusions:
There's {{ PD-law}} (no s), which says simply: This file has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder. It may be freely used unless otherwise required by law. It's unused, and I'm prodding the author about xfd'ing it.-- Elvey ( talk) 23:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know if A) A PD Template exists for South Korea OR B) The amount of time images become PD in South Korea -- Esemono ( talk) 11:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there a Bulgaria PD template out there? It'd really help me in keeping the PD images I upload from being deleted time after time. Boothferry ( talk) 14:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Would it be possible to get a Florida PD tag? See Copyright status of work by the Florida government Frank0051 ( talk) 16:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
How can I get a PD tag for UAE?-- Renzoy16 | Contact Me 14:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to proceed, but I don't think this picture is public domain. It says it was taken from the official Puerto Rico Senate page, but the profile of the senator doesn't have it. Also, even if the picture was there, I don't think it is covered by public domain or even fair use. Thief12 ( talk) 16:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
In § Other countries, the descriptions of PD-BrazilGov and PD-VenezuelaGov both say " i.e.", which means "that is" (Latin, id est), although it seems that " e.g." (= "for example", exempli gratia) is at least as likely to be correct:
These two abbreviations are frequently confused, and the difference is especially important in an article such as this. I'm concerned that whoever wrote these summaries may have used the wrong one. If "i.e." is correct, the template applies only to flags and symbols, but not to other official symbols such as the national Great Seal. But if it's supposed to be "e.g.", the list of covered items is not exhaustive, and other official symbols such as the national seal actually are PD. To discuss this, please {{Ping}} me. -- Thnidu ( talk) 16:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Why doesn't this page recognize the template for the country of Belize, which does exist at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Belize — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj ( talk • contribs) 11:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI Template:Imagetools ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.247.17 ( talk) 03:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Images and Media ( inactive) | ||||
|
Open Unassessed ( inactive) | |||||||
|
is this Image:Silvershiner.gif a good because? Is there a better way to document this? Pdbailey 03:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going over the images uploaded by one user who didn't care much where an image was from so long as it was on a United States Government (USG) server. In deed, some were clearly copyrighted (and licensed by the USG under a license wikipedia would not accept), some were public domain and clearly labeled. The set that vexes me are those that appear on a USG server without any notice. Can I consider these to be PD? Pdbailey 13:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have any information on Public Domain in Greece? If so, please create a tag, and place it on Image:Greek.destroyer.bas.georgios.jpg. Thanks. tiZom (2¢) 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Can someone help me with this. I can't figure out why the bot keeps tagging it. I used a pre-1923 PD tag and then removed the warnings and the bot keeps putting them back. Long levi 07:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: A PARALLEL DISCUSSION CAN BE FOUND AT Wikipedia_talk:Public_domain#Another_PD_Template_added.
I have added {{ PD-EU-no author disclosure}} to the page, with related category. The 1993 EU copyright directive explicitly directs that an author (e.g. photographer) must disclose her or his identity in conjunction with publishing an image in order to obtain copyright protection for 70years p.m.a.. Lacking such public disclosure of the identity of the author of a photograph (the photographer or assignee of the photographer's rights) in conjunction with its publication, the author's right to claim copyright lapses 70 years after the first publication of the image. Presently this would be all photos published prior to August, 1937 (70 years ago), but published without an explicit public disclosure of who was the photographer. See Article 1, §§1-4 of the 1993 EU copyright directive. ... Kenosis 13:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
For the present, the category is Category:Public domain images no longer eligible for claim of authorship. No doubt this will get discussed as it goes along, and if necessary, adapted or moved to another title according to what the experience turns out to be with the template and the category. ... Kenosis 15:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
With respect to the recently placed demand for concrete non-web-based proof of publication data, and the demand for the uploader to provide additional reasoning and particular forms of citations
added here: I removed the imbedded flag
this diff and the two that follow for the following non-exhastive set of reasons.
:First, the reasoning is already disclosed in the template. Asking for the "reasoning for the reasoning" prior to seeing the image and examining the required disclosure of the source is excessive, and none of the other standard templates presently do so.
:Second, a demand in advance for concrete proof of absence on an image claimed by the uploader to have been published prior to 1938 without visible claim of authorship is unreasonable. A reasonable search, appropriate source information, whether web-based or otherwise, is typically quite adequate for PD-50, PD-70 and PD-100, and, unless the overall approach is changed wrt all the general templates, it should be adequate for this template as well.
:Third, the
presumed good faith statement by the uploader is typically applied across the board with these templates, at least as of today. If the application of the template is deemed to be unreasonable, there are convenient deletion options already in place such as the CFSDs and IfDs, available to be brought to bear to quickly correct such issues.
:Fourth, the expectation in the inserted flag (the red triangular "nuvola" sign) demonstrates an absence of good faith, a complete misinterpretation of
WP:VER (read it again, please) and I think merely attempts to make quick work of deletions prior to seeing good reason to propose such deletions with respect to particular images. Even the PD-100 template, which could easily be applied to images as early as the mid-19th Century, doesn't make this kind of negative presumption at the outset. There are other reasons to avoid an imbedded flag on this template too, but I don't have time to go into them. Suffice it to say that there are already processes in place to deal with unreasonable or questionable uses of this template.
....... I think, though, that it might be extremely useful to set up some additional "small text" in the template inviting anyone who has additional source information, whether supportive of or contradictory to the assertion of "no public authorship" for a pre-1938 photo, to make a note providing additional evidence on the image page. ...
Kenosis 13:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The only thing I still don't understand is the interaction with US law. Can works which are in the public domain in their home country in Europe still be copyrighted in the United States? Haukur 16:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
See, e.g., this synopsis, in which the category currently under discussion is incorporated into "WORKS PUBLISHED OUTSIDE THE US" > "Works Published Abroad Before 1978 Without Compliance with US Formalities" > "1923 through 1977" > "In the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996". AFAIK, works in the public domain in their home country that were published over 70 years ago where the photograph wasn't attributed to a photographer (the "author"), which have become public domain after 1996, would also be in the public domain in the U.S. ... Kenosis 16:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added this template to the art section, because it is applicable. If there's any problem, please remove it and discuss here. Tyrenius 03:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have a question about images from old movie trailers. If I take a screenshot from a movie trailer of a movie that came out before 1977, is it in the public domain? Or is it for movie trailers from before 1964? And does it matter if a person's name is on the screen with them or would it be copyrighted as a screenshot from the movie if there was no name? For instance, if the photo in Rosalind Russell's article didn't have her name on it in the trailer and instead was a shot from the movie but still part of the trailer, would I have to tag that as a copyrighted screenshot or would it still count as public domain because it was in the trailer?
Hopefully that question made sense, and any help would be appreciated!
Ilampsurvivor5 01:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a place to address translation of copyright tags? On ro: there's a ro:Template:DP-oferit which as far as I can tell means PD was offered by the owner. Until the translation is in place, the Move-to-commons assistant correctly refuses to operate on the tagged image. LeadSongDog ( talk) 18:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a tag specific for diagrams in Patents? According to WP:PD :
Descriptions (including diagrams) in patent applications in the U.S. are "published into the public domain" by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office [2]. Portions may contain the non-obligatory notice of copyright © or mask work Ⓜ protection, but the patent applicant must state in the text of the description that the owner of the rights in the protected part agrees to allow anyone to make facsimile reproductions of those portions of the description, but otherwise reserves all rights 37 CFR § 1.71(e).
Thanks.
Dspark76 (
talk) 13:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Say I own an original drawing by some famous author. Can I put this in public domain and upload the image to wikipedia and attach the public domain tag? Let us assume this image has already been published in magazines. Vincent Lextrait ( talk) 13:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I ran across this template while attempting to clear some of the backlog at Category:Category needed. Has this been approved or should I bring it up at WP:TfD? — Ashanda ( talk) 15:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This template is empty and it is listed as a copyright tag. It should be created or removed from the list.-- Sdrtirs ( talk) 08:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
What template should be used for works that were published in the public domain to begin with, or published as "anti-copyright"? Are these the same thing?
For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anrchcydinop.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Evasion_cover.jpg
These are covers of books both published as anti-copyright. Right now they both have non-free templates.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-copyright —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnissley ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm planning to make and add PD-court under PD-USGov - "the public record of any court case is in the public domain". This page has no entry for such records. I believe all court filings are public records, and therefore public domain (for example, all the court filings posted on thesmokinggun.com). Evidence: "the public record of any court case [is] in the public domain" according to
public domain, with a
citation. --
Elvey (
talk) 23:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
more info - found some common and case law - while it's all explicitly about ACCESS, not COPYRIGHT, it access is meaningless without the ability to publish the public record: --Elvey
A. The Public Has a Presumptive Right of Access to Litigation-Related Documents
The right of public access to litigation-related documents has three sources: the rules of discovery, Federal common law, and the First Amendment. Each of these sources provides important reasons for unsealing the Sealed Documents.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]t is well-established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing cases). This presumption may be overridden only when there is “good cause” for protecting documents from disclosure. See id. (citing Rule 26(c)).
...
When a document is not merely a fruit of discovery but has become a part of the court record, the common law’s “strong presumption in favor of access” to court documents comes into play. Hagestad v. Tragessser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995); see also San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102. The United States Supreme Court recognized this common law right of access in Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Although Nixon involved records in a criminal case, the courts of appeals have uniformly held that the right of access applies to the records of both civil and criminal cases. See San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102.
- - MOTION TO UNSEAL RECORDS IN RYAN V. CARL May 13, 2002
This is an interesting topic, but has wandered far, far off field. First, you cannot confuse rights to access a document, which applies to many public records, with rights to copy, adapt, modify and amend a document, which is what true 'public domain' status denotes. Bottom line rule: whatever rights of access might exist to court records, the vast, vast majority of court records are NOT in the public domain. Copyright in them is owned by the person who authored the document, same as in any other situtaion. Also, this discussion repeatedly confuses judicial opinions - authored by judges and issued by courts - which are never subject to copyright with court 'records', such as briefs and pleadings, which are usually authored by private lawyers and published by them (when filed with the court). These are NOT public domain documents, as the author retains all of his or her rights of authorship in the work. DAJ Hilton, -- 91.106.63.204 ( talk) 21:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I was unsure whether PD-laws in fact applied to the 'Rockefeller' image, so I did some research. I found the answer; here's my data and conclusions:
There's {{ PD-law}} (no s), which says simply: This file has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder. It may be freely used unless otherwise required by law. It's unused, and I'm prodding the author about xfd'ing it.-- Elvey ( talk) 23:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know if A) A PD Template exists for South Korea OR B) The amount of time images become PD in South Korea -- Esemono ( talk) 11:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there a Bulgaria PD template out there? It'd really help me in keeping the PD images I upload from being deleted time after time. Boothferry ( talk) 14:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Would it be possible to get a Florida PD tag? See Copyright status of work by the Florida government Frank0051 ( talk) 16:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
How can I get a PD tag for UAE?-- Renzoy16 | Contact Me 14:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to proceed, but I don't think this picture is public domain. It says it was taken from the official Puerto Rico Senate page, but the profile of the senator doesn't have it. Also, even if the picture was there, I don't think it is covered by public domain or even fair use. Thief12 ( talk) 16:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
In § Other countries, the descriptions of PD-BrazilGov and PD-VenezuelaGov both say " i.e.", which means "that is" (Latin, id est), although it seems that " e.g." (= "for example", exempli gratia) is at least as likely to be correct:
These two abbreviations are frequently confused, and the difference is especially important in an article such as this. I'm concerned that whoever wrote these summaries may have used the wrong one. If "i.e." is correct, the template applies only to flags and symbols, but not to other official symbols such as the national Great Seal. But if it's supposed to be "e.g.", the list of covered items is not exhaustive, and other official symbols such as the national seal actually are PD. To discuss this, please {{Ping}} me. -- Thnidu ( talk) 16:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Why doesn't this page recognize the template for the country of Belize, which does exist at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Belize — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj ( talk • contribs) 11:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI Template:Imagetools ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.247.17 ( talk) 03:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)