One thing I'm unsure about is whether only the first publication is relevant. What about an image first published in Canada, but subsequently also published in the U.S.? Or does "published" (e.g. in Hirtle's chart) mean "also published in the U.S." and "only published abroad"? Lupo 09:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
This article is terrific. The "in short" summaries are invaluable for getting a cursory understanding. Wow. I'm impressed.
Perhaps this could eventually be used to overhaul the Wikipedia:Public domain information page? My list of countries could be a subpage, as could some of the material there. Do you think that would be appropriate? – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 13:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
User:Dragons flight has written that "The US Copyright Office has interpreted this as applying to all "edicts of government" both domestic and foreign." Can we have a source for that, please? The extlink given doesn't say anything like that of foreign laws (assuming "foreign laws" means "laws of countries other than the U.S."). I find it hard to believe that the U.S. could or would preempt a foreign government's copyright on their foreign law text. Lupo 09:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Although the article hints at this, I'd like to see it stated explicitly - if an author died before January 1, 1935, all of their works are now in the public domain (even if published the day before death) unless they were works-for-hire, which have a 95 year coverage from the date of publication. Also, some works published up even up until the 1960s have entered the public domain because the author(s) or their heirs/assigns failed to renew their copyright protection at the appropriate time. BD2412 T 15:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Under what circumstances should one use {{ PD}}? It currently says
which I believe is problematic because of the combination "copyright expired" and "applies worldwide". As copyright expiry varies from country to country, it'd be rather difficult to make sure that this claim really holds — probably only for really old works. Maybe a useful guideline might be "published works by authors who died at least 100 years ago" (I think Mexico's 100y p.m.a. term is the longest...), but for those we already have {{ PD-old}}. Another possible fix might be to simply remove the "copyright expired" statement from {{ PD}}, but for the "ineligible" part, one should either use on of the PD-USGov templates or a country-specific template that explains why the particular work was ineligible for copyright protection anyway (such as {{ PD-PolishGov}}. Lupo 10:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Some of the reasoning does not make sense to me. Perhaps it could be worded or explained in another way. For example:
Especially the reasoning "and all the images included therein" gives the impression that a work confers its copyright status on everything it contains. This is not true for material included in a work when that material was previously registered or previously published elsewhere. If this were true, the copyright on an image would be in effect "renewed" every time it is reused in a new work. -- Tabor 17:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't have time to do thorough research at the moment, but the references here to the restoration of copyright by the URAA don't mention that it contains a very specific exception for copyrights that were at any time owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian in which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or government instrumentality. Such copyrights were not restored by the URAA. The reason this seems siginificant to me is that one of the examples outlined on the page is WWII-era German materials--this exception is quite likely to apply to many of them.
I don't follow the point about "the NARA acknowledges German copyrights". Reading through the linked page, all I see is acknowledgement that copyright may apply to the artworks that are depicted by the photographs. (And many of these artworks are decidedly not German). -- Tabor 23:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
On an unrelated stylistic note, I think the exclamation points should be eliminated. -- Tabor 23:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
While one would have to check whether its copyright was renewed to be absolutely sure, it's a fairly safe bet that the Karsh Estate did do so.
The degree of certainty here seems to be at odds with footnote 7 of the Hirsh chart you link above which says: A 1961 Copyright Office study found that fewer than 15% of all registered copyrights were renewed. For books, the figure was even lower: 7%. See Barbara Ringer, "Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright" (1960), reprinted in Library of Congress Copyright Office. -- Tabor 00:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The section "Do I need to know the copyright and licensing status of the image?" needs to be rewritten; it confuses "published pre-1923" with "created pre-1923" (and the Buffalo Bill example doesn't work for me - no Buffalo Bill image in sight). Also, the "foreign country" advice is patently false: not everything in the PD in some other country is also in the PD in the U.S. Lupo 09:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Under "Government Works," I would like to point out another large class of US govt docs (on uspto.gov) that are published by the US govt but are not "works of" the US govt: patents. They are copyrighted works of the inventors, patent agents or patent attorneys who (perhaps jointly) wrote them. If anyone can cite an authoritative source contrary to this view, please do so. Lupinelawyer 07:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The article's intro suggests that works are protected by copyright. If that is so, would it not be extremely anti-social and irresponsible of Wikipedia to promote the usage of public domain works? After all, the public domain works are apparently no longer protected. The definition used by this article suggests works need copyright to protect them.
Of course, you could be a crazy mofo like me who believes that works are burdened by copyright, and that "return" to the public domain is the best thing that could happen to most of them, but I am also the deranged sort who believes that authors aren't the owners of the works they created, but the public, and that the authors are merely owners of copyrights.
Welcome to my world. Try not to cuddle up into a fetal ball and cry "Evil public domain!"-- 82.92.181.129 16:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a silly question, but... say there is a book that contains photos which, according to captions, came from the US Army / USMC / etc.. The photos from these sources are supposed to be in public domain. The book, however, has the standard section "no part of this book can be reproduced... etc.". So, what is the status of these photos ? Is it OK to scan them and use in the wikipedia ? Bukvoed 16:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
We call such false claims according to MAZZONE: Copyfraud. Try a Google search to find aout the excellent article he has published on this topic. -- Historiograf 17:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It is an important issue worth discussed in the article. My opinion - speaking for de - is that pictures which crwon copyright has expired can be used here because UK copyright law decides that the owner of the copyright is not the creator but the crown. BTW: really great page I have seen today the first time! Greetings frm Germany -- Historiograf 17:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the EU Database Directive is just the European Union's implementation of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, which was implemented in the U.S. as the DMCA. Similar to the already mentioned Eckes v. Card Prices Update it protects the database as such, i.e. the selection of items included in the database and the means of extraction. Because the selection is copyrighted, copying all or a substantial part of the items out of a database and using or redistributing it as a whole would be a violation of the copyright on the database under this treaty. However, note that all this does not change anything on the copyright of the individual items. Their copyright exists independent of that of the database. See e.g. Article 5 of the WCT, or §3.2 of the EU directive, or 17 USC 103(b), which had existed even prior to the DMCA. Lupo 12:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I have recently come across cases where reproductions of paintings were uploaded to both the English Wikipedia and the Commons and claimed to be in the public domain because the works were created before 1923, yet the painters died only relatively recently. However the 1923 rule is for things published before that year, not "created". That got me to investigate the matter of copyrights on artworks a bit closer. Is creation really publication for an artwork? What does constitute publication for an artwork? Some preliminary discussions on this can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use#Art, at Michael Snow's talk page, and at my own talk page.
I have now discovered Stephen Fishman's book on the public domain (ISBN 1-4133-0015-4), which has a whole chapter about PD art. I do not know how trustworthy Fishman is; I have found at least one case where he contradicts the U.S. Copyright Office, and he uses mostly old court cases to document his statements (nearly all of those in the art section are from before 1978, and I do not know whether these decisions have been overturned by later cases, or overtaken generally by the new copyright law that came into effect in 1978). In general, the book reads like a "copyright for dummies" guide. I don't mean that in a disparaging way, but I don't like its organization and it's too repetitive for my taste. But it does have some information on artworks.
Note that the question of publication is an entirely U.S. thing. Other countries do not have that "published before 1923" rule; just about anywhere else in the world the only rule for artworks is that the copyright runs until X years p.m.a., where X typically is 70. But since Wikipedia is Florida-based, we do have to take a close look at the U.S. situation.
Now, first off, we have the Berne Convention, §3.3 saying that "the exhibition of a work of art [...] shall not constitute publication", and U.S. law concurs: 17 USC 101 says "A public [...] display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." Furthermore, the U.S. Copyright Office says in its Circular 40 that selling an artwork (including through an auction or gallery, where the work would be exposed to the public) did not constitute publication either. (Emphasis mine.)
According to Fishman, an artwork is published:
That leaves us with the first criterion. It looks right, and lines up with the opinion expressed here. This link highlights a very special case, but cites an opinion of someone from the U.S. copyright office saying "It [A painting] was first displayed publicly in an exhibition in 2000 and was printed in the catalog. It was then considered published because of the distribution of the catalog." Note that it's not the display at the exhibition that made the artwork "published" but the publication of a reproduction of the work in the exhibition catalog.
The same link also highlights another aspect of artworks: like other works, they are unpublished unless published (even if exhibited!). As an unpublished work, an artwork is copyrighted until 70 years p.m.a., unless it was eventually published between 1978 and 2002 (inclusive), in which case it is copyrighted until the later of 2047 and 70 years p.m.a. (That's another of these idiosyncratic U.S. copyright rules that you don't find anywhere else on the planet.) If published, the work is subject to all the same rules as other published works (if published (not "created"!!!) before 1923 → PD; also copyright renewals, publication without copyright notice).
Based on all this, I would suggest that the general rule for artwork and paintings in particular should be
I would advise against using the second part of this rule for non-U.S. artworks, as the TRIPS restored many such copyrights even if they had been lost in the U.S., e.g. due to non-registration, or lack of © notice, and in most other countries, the copyright on an artwork does not depend on publication anyway but just runs to 70 years p.m.a. The first part is also fine for the vast majority of non-U.S. works.
I realise that this rule ignores the "unpublished, then published 1978 - 2002 → copyrighted until at least 2047" special case, but that pathological case appears to be rare.
To show that a U.S. work was indeed published, one could look for printed works that contained reproductions of the work: art prints, art books, a catalog raisonné, exhibition catalogs, and so on. Reasonable effort should be made to find the earliest publication. If any is found from pre-1923, that's good enough and the work is in the public domain, even if the author/creator died less than 70 years ago. Remember, though, that "publication" means "lawful publication", which implies the consent of the author of the original.
I think this rule would also apply on the commons. Note that under this rule, all images in e.g. commons:Category:Georgia O'Keeffe would have to go unless the second part of the rule can be fulfilled. There are similar images on the English Wikipedia, too, see e.g. Stuart Davis. Comments, anyone? Lupo 09:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that separate transactions often happen. For the German law see my printed article in the Kunstchronik 2005 on the Katalogbildfreiheit in the de WP article on this topic (the full text is available in the URECHT mailing list archives, linked in the de WP article) -- Historiograf 04:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The WTO secretariat produces a great number of high-quality reports each year, e.g. trade policy reviews of its Member States. Obviously, such texts would be useful for incorporation in economy-related articles, etc. However, the question of copyright protection of course arises:
Any opinions on whether WTO reports are PD enough for Wikipedia? If none are forthcoming, I might just ask them by e-mail. Sandstein 20:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I still don't think that is correct. See this edit, and in particular the references given there. If works of the UN are subject to copyright, then why should WTO documents not be? Lupo 20:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
This page doesn't seem to mention Commons. Since Commons is the best place to upload PD media used in a WP article, shouldn't we be pushing it on this page? TheGrappler 19:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
If the NSA archives only work created by the U.S. Government, can I take it for granted that, say, photographs in the Archive are in the public domain and can thus be freely uploaded to Commons? Angr ( t • c) 08:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, could I get some help regarding this website? Specifically, are the images public domain? (And is there copyfraud going on?) For details, please drop by Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...#Rare Books from the Missouri Botanical Garden Library. Thanks, Melchoir 14:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
This is incorrect: In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world[1] is in the public domain. Other countries are not bound to that 1923 date, though. Complications arise when special cases are considered, such as trying to determine whether a work published later might be in the public domain in the U.S., or when dealing with unpublished works. When a work has not been published in the U.S. but in some other country, that other country's copyright laws also must be taken into account. Re-users of Wikipedia content also might find the explanations here useful.
Copyright in artistic works, such as poetry, music, etc. last for 70 years after the death of the author. [7] [8]. The date of publication is irrelevant except in the matter of the copyright on an imprint. Robertsteadman 17:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Are American high school yearbook photos from the 1950's public domain? Usually yearbooks are not copyrighted. Mg rotc2487 01:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Template:Mugshot has been listed for deletion here. You're invited to comment. — Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It exists on the commons as commons:Template:NAUMANN, but the webpage with describes it is in German, which I can't read nearly well enough to understand any of it. Can someone help me verify this tag so we can use it here? -- Kevin_b_er 03:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
So it seems very likely that the rationale presented is correct for this book. If you seek further verification, a lot of our users speak German. — Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)From Naumann: A Natural History of the Birds of Central Europe.
The basis of the photo ([something about a library]) is the work of Johann Andreas Naumann, 1796 - 1803. The artist who made the pictures was his son, Johann Friedrich. Digitization: Peter v. Sengbusch.
Could anyone help me clarify the licencing of Image:Hundingsbane.jpg? It appeared in a book published in English in London in 1912 but the author died less than 70 years ago. I don't know whether US copyright formalities were observed or not. Is it in the public domain? This chart doesn't seem to cover the case where a work is published in English outside the US between 1909 and 1922 and not in compliance with US formalities. Haukur 16:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there a resaon why this page is not marked as a guideline. I noticed that WP:FU is and seeing as this is basically the public domain equivilant it seem that this should be marked as a guideline too. Ydam 01:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
As an admin of English Wikisource, I would like to report that a major discovery at s:Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Draft_United_Nations_Guiding_principles_on_Human_Rights_and_Extreme_Poverty has found that paragraph 2 of ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 leaves United Nations resolutions in the public domain. Please visit the discussion there and think of revising this project page. This is a very important copyright discovery.-- Jusjih 17:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I have found [9] with a useful table showing whether countries and areas honor the rule of the shorter term. Perhaps we should show more countries and areas? In Asia, I just found and in addition to Japan, Macao also honors the rule of the shorter term while Mainland China does not.-- Jusjih 15:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
One thing I'm unsure about is whether only the first publication is relevant. What about an image first published in Canada, but subsequently also published in the U.S.? Or does "published" (e.g. in Hirtle's chart) mean "also published in the U.S." and "only published abroad"? Lupo 09:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
This article is terrific. The "in short" summaries are invaluable for getting a cursory understanding. Wow. I'm impressed.
Perhaps this could eventually be used to overhaul the Wikipedia:Public domain information page? My list of countries could be a subpage, as could some of the material there. Do you think that would be appropriate? – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 13:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
User:Dragons flight has written that "The US Copyright Office has interpreted this as applying to all "edicts of government" both domestic and foreign." Can we have a source for that, please? The extlink given doesn't say anything like that of foreign laws (assuming "foreign laws" means "laws of countries other than the U.S."). I find it hard to believe that the U.S. could or would preempt a foreign government's copyright on their foreign law text. Lupo 09:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Although the article hints at this, I'd like to see it stated explicitly - if an author died before January 1, 1935, all of their works are now in the public domain (even if published the day before death) unless they were works-for-hire, which have a 95 year coverage from the date of publication. Also, some works published up even up until the 1960s have entered the public domain because the author(s) or their heirs/assigns failed to renew their copyright protection at the appropriate time. BD2412 T 15:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Under what circumstances should one use {{ PD}}? It currently says
which I believe is problematic because of the combination "copyright expired" and "applies worldwide". As copyright expiry varies from country to country, it'd be rather difficult to make sure that this claim really holds — probably only for really old works. Maybe a useful guideline might be "published works by authors who died at least 100 years ago" (I think Mexico's 100y p.m.a. term is the longest...), but for those we already have {{ PD-old}}. Another possible fix might be to simply remove the "copyright expired" statement from {{ PD}}, but for the "ineligible" part, one should either use on of the PD-USGov templates or a country-specific template that explains why the particular work was ineligible for copyright protection anyway (such as {{ PD-PolishGov}}. Lupo 10:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Some of the reasoning does not make sense to me. Perhaps it could be worded or explained in another way. For example:
Especially the reasoning "and all the images included therein" gives the impression that a work confers its copyright status on everything it contains. This is not true for material included in a work when that material was previously registered or previously published elsewhere. If this were true, the copyright on an image would be in effect "renewed" every time it is reused in a new work. -- Tabor 17:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't have time to do thorough research at the moment, but the references here to the restoration of copyright by the URAA don't mention that it contains a very specific exception for copyrights that were at any time owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian in which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or government instrumentality. Such copyrights were not restored by the URAA. The reason this seems siginificant to me is that one of the examples outlined on the page is WWII-era German materials--this exception is quite likely to apply to many of them.
I don't follow the point about "the NARA acknowledges German copyrights". Reading through the linked page, all I see is acknowledgement that copyright may apply to the artworks that are depicted by the photographs. (And many of these artworks are decidedly not German). -- Tabor 23:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
On an unrelated stylistic note, I think the exclamation points should be eliminated. -- Tabor 23:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
While one would have to check whether its copyright was renewed to be absolutely sure, it's a fairly safe bet that the Karsh Estate did do so.
The degree of certainty here seems to be at odds with footnote 7 of the Hirsh chart you link above which says: A 1961 Copyright Office study found that fewer than 15% of all registered copyrights were renewed. For books, the figure was even lower: 7%. See Barbara Ringer, "Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright" (1960), reprinted in Library of Congress Copyright Office. -- Tabor 00:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The section "Do I need to know the copyright and licensing status of the image?" needs to be rewritten; it confuses "published pre-1923" with "created pre-1923" (and the Buffalo Bill example doesn't work for me - no Buffalo Bill image in sight). Also, the "foreign country" advice is patently false: not everything in the PD in some other country is also in the PD in the U.S. Lupo 09:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Under "Government Works," I would like to point out another large class of US govt docs (on uspto.gov) that are published by the US govt but are not "works of" the US govt: patents. They are copyrighted works of the inventors, patent agents or patent attorneys who (perhaps jointly) wrote them. If anyone can cite an authoritative source contrary to this view, please do so. Lupinelawyer 07:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The article's intro suggests that works are protected by copyright. If that is so, would it not be extremely anti-social and irresponsible of Wikipedia to promote the usage of public domain works? After all, the public domain works are apparently no longer protected. The definition used by this article suggests works need copyright to protect them.
Of course, you could be a crazy mofo like me who believes that works are burdened by copyright, and that "return" to the public domain is the best thing that could happen to most of them, but I am also the deranged sort who believes that authors aren't the owners of the works they created, but the public, and that the authors are merely owners of copyrights.
Welcome to my world. Try not to cuddle up into a fetal ball and cry "Evil public domain!"-- 82.92.181.129 16:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a silly question, but... say there is a book that contains photos which, according to captions, came from the US Army / USMC / etc.. The photos from these sources are supposed to be in public domain. The book, however, has the standard section "no part of this book can be reproduced... etc.". So, what is the status of these photos ? Is it OK to scan them and use in the wikipedia ? Bukvoed 16:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
We call such false claims according to MAZZONE: Copyfraud. Try a Google search to find aout the excellent article he has published on this topic. -- Historiograf 17:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It is an important issue worth discussed in the article. My opinion - speaking for de - is that pictures which crwon copyright has expired can be used here because UK copyright law decides that the owner of the copyright is not the creator but the crown. BTW: really great page I have seen today the first time! Greetings frm Germany -- Historiograf 17:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the EU Database Directive is just the European Union's implementation of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, which was implemented in the U.S. as the DMCA. Similar to the already mentioned Eckes v. Card Prices Update it protects the database as such, i.e. the selection of items included in the database and the means of extraction. Because the selection is copyrighted, copying all or a substantial part of the items out of a database and using or redistributing it as a whole would be a violation of the copyright on the database under this treaty. However, note that all this does not change anything on the copyright of the individual items. Their copyright exists independent of that of the database. See e.g. Article 5 of the WCT, or §3.2 of the EU directive, or 17 USC 103(b), which had existed even prior to the DMCA. Lupo 12:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I have recently come across cases where reproductions of paintings were uploaded to both the English Wikipedia and the Commons and claimed to be in the public domain because the works were created before 1923, yet the painters died only relatively recently. However the 1923 rule is for things published before that year, not "created". That got me to investigate the matter of copyrights on artworks a bit closer. Is creation really publication for an artwork? What does constitute publication for an artwork? Some preliminary discussions on this can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use#Art, at Michael Snow's talk page, and at my own talk page.
I have now discovered Stephen Fishman's book on the public domain (ISBN 1-4133-0015-4), which has a whole chapter about PD art. I do not know how trustworthy Fishman is; I have found at least one case where he contradicts the U.S. Copyright Office, and he uses mostly old court cases to document his statements (nearly all of those in the art section are from before 1978, and I do not know whether these decisions have been overturned by later cases, or overtaken generally by the new copyright law that came into effect in 1978). In general, the book reads like a "copyright for dummies" guide. I don't mean that in a disparaging way, but I don't like its organization and it's too repetitive for my taste. But it does have some information on artworks.
Note that the question of publication is an entirely U.S. thing. Other countries do not have that "published before 1923" rule; just about anywhere else in the world the only rule for artworks is that the copyright runs until X years p.m.a., where X typically is 70. But since Wikipedia is Florida-based, we do have to take a close look at the U.S. situation.
Now, first off, we have the Berne Convention, §3.3 saying that "the exhibition of a work of art [...] shall not constitute publication", and U.S. law concurs: 17 USC 101 says "A public [...] display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." Furthermore, the U.S. Copyright Office says in its Circular 40 that selling an artwork (including through an auction or gallery, where the work would be exposed to the public) did not constitute publication either. (Emphasis mine.)
According to Fishman, an artwork is published:
That leaves us with the first criterion. It looks right, and lines up with the opinion expressed here. This link highlights a very special case, but cites an opinion of someone from the U.S. copyright office saying "It [A painting] was first displayed publicly in an exhibition in 2000 and was printed in the catalog. It was then considered published because of the distribution of the catalog." Note that it's not the display at the exhibition that made the artwork "published" but the publication of a reproduction of the work in the exhibition catalog.
The same link also highlights another aspect of artworks: like other works, they are unpublished unless published (even if exhibited!). As an unpublished work, an artwork is copyrighted until 70 years p.m.a., unless it was eventually published between 1978 and 2002 (inclusive), in which case it is copyrighted until the later of 2047 and 70 years p.m.a. (That's another of these idiosyncratic U.S. copyright rules that you don't find anywhere else on the planet.) If published, the work is subject to all the same rules as other published works (if published (not "created"!!!) before 1923 → PD; also copyright renewals, publication without copyright notice).
Based on all this, I would suggest that the general rule for artwork and paintings in particular should be
I would advise against using the second part of this rule for non-U.S. artworks, as the TRIPS restored many such copyrights even if they had been lost in the U.S., e.g. due to non-registration, or lack of © notice, and in most other countries, the copyright on an artwork does not depend on publication anyway but just runs to 70 years p.m.a. The first part is also fine for the vast majority of non-U.S. works.
I realise that this rule ignores the "unpublished, then published 1978 - 2002 → copyrighted until at least 2047" special case, but that pathological case appears to be rare.
To show that a U.S. work was indeed published, one could look for printed works that contained reproductions of the work: art prints, art books, a catalog raisonné, exhibition catalogs, and so on. Reasonable effort should be made to find the earliest publication. If any is found from pre-1923, that's good enough and the work is in the public domain, even if the author/creator died less than 70 years ago. Remember, though, that "publication" means "lawful publication", which implies the consent of the author of the original.
I think this rule would also apply on the commons. Note that under this rule, all images in e.g. commons:Category:Georgia O'Keeffe would have to go unless the second part of the rule can be fulfilled. There are similar images on the English Wikipedia, too, see e.g. Stuart Davis. Comments, anyone? Lupo 09:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that separate transactions often happen. For the German law see my printed article in the Kunstchronik 2005 on the Katalogbildfreiheit in the de WP article on this topic (the full text is available in the URECHT mailing list archives, linked in the de WP article) -- Historiograf 04:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The WTO secretariat produces a great number of high-quality reports each year, e.g. trade policy reviews of its Member States. Obviously, such texts would be useful for incorporation in economy-related articles, etc. However, the question of copyright protection of course arises:
Any opinions on whether WTO reports are PD enough for Wikipedia? If none are forthcoming, I might just ask them by e-mail. Sandstein 20:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I still don't think that is correct. See this edit, and in particular the references given there. If works of the UN are subject to copyright, then why should WTO documents not be? Lupo 20:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
This page doesn't seem to mention Commons. Since Commons is the best place to upload PD media used in a WP article, shouldn't we be pushing it on this page? TheGrappler 19:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
If the NSA archives only work created by the U.S. Government, can I take it for granted that, say, photographs in the Archive are in the public domain and can thus be freely uploaded to Commons? Angr ( t • c) 08:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, could I get some help regarding this website? Specifically, are the images public domain? (And is there copyfraud going on?) For details, please drop by Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...#Rare Books from the Missouri Botanical Garden Library. Thanks, Melchoir 14:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
This is incorrect: In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world[1] is in the public domain. Other countries are not bound to that 1923 date, though. Complications arise when special cases are considered, such as trying to determine whether a work published later might be in the public domain in the U.S., or when dealing with unpublished works. When a work has not been published in the U.S. but in some other country, that other country's copyright laws also must be taken into account. Re-users of Wikipedia content also might find the explanations here useful.
Copyright in artistic works, such as poetry, music, etc. last for 70 years after the death of the author. [7] [8]. The date of publication is irrelevant except in the matter of the copyright on an imprint. Robertsteadman 17:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Are American high school yearbook photos from the 1950's public domain? Usually yearbooks are not copyrighted. Mg rotc2487 01:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Template:Mugshot has been listed for deletion here. You're invited to comment. — Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It exists on the commons as commons:Template:NAUMANN, but the webpage with describes it is in German, which I can't read nearly well enough to understand any of it. Can someone help me verify this tag so we can use it here? -- Kevin_b_er 03:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
So it seems very likely that the rationale presented is correct for this book. If you seek further verification, a lot of our users speak German. — Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)From Naumann: A Natural History of the Birds of Central Europe.
The basis of the photo ([something about a library]) is the work of Johann Andreas Naumann, 1796 - 1803. The artist who made the pictures was his son, Johann Friedrich. Digitization: Peter v. Sengbusch.
Could anyone help me clarify the licencing of Image:Hundingsbane.jpg? It appeared in a book published in English in London in 1912 but the author died less than 70 years ago. I don't know whether US copyright formalities were observed or not. Is it in the public domain? This chart doesn't seem to cover the case where a work is published in English outside the US between 1909 and 1922 and not in compliance with US formalities. Haukur 16:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there a resaon why this page is not marked as a guideline. I noticed that WP:FU is and seeing as this is basically the public domain equivilant it seem that this should be marked as a guideline too. Ydam 01:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
As an admin of English Wikisource, I would like to report that a major discovery at s:Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Draft_United_Nations_Guiding_principles_on_Human_Rights_and_Extreme_Poverty has found that paragraph 2 of ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 leaves United Nations resolutions in the public domain. Please visit the discussion there and think of revising this project page. This is a very important copyright discovery.-- Jusjih 17:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I have found [9] with a useful table showing whether countries and areas honor the rule of the shorter term. Perhaps we should show more countries and areas? In Asia, I just found and in addition to Japan, Macao also honors the rule of the shorter term while Mainland China does not.-- Jusjih 15:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)