![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Don't know where else to put this:
http://content.cdlib.org/search?style=oac-img;sort=title;relation=ark:/13030/kt5b69q5bc
Note that not all are PD, however many explicitly state their PDness and are published before 1923/09, etc, etc... 68.39.174.238 06:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I've done several laps of every copyright related wiki page I can find and haven't found a right place for this question, and this looks like the closest...
On my office bookshelf, I have 7 engineering and mathematics textbooks dated 1914, 1924, 1930, 1933, 1934 and (2*) 1937 that I inherited from my grandfather. There may be more elsewhere but I haven't looked. I would like to work out whether the content is now PD but simply don't have the time to wade through and work out the process necessary.
I'm just wondering if there is a page, wikiproject or any volunteers who will do the online searching to find out if a book's copyright has expired and it is hence able to be used in wiki.
A page of requests and results would be really useful. If one exists, it would be useful to make links to it more obvious. If it doesn't exist, it might make a very useful wikiproject. -- Athol Mullen 06:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"In short: Pre-1949 Karsh images are in the public domain only in Canada."
Not true. Many other countries have had fixed (as opposed to relative to lifespan) copyright terms for photographs in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.82.153 ( talk • contribs) 19:35, January 29, 2007
Hello. Here [1] and here [2] are 2 Andy Iona songs that I would like to upload here. They're in the public domain. I would like to include them in a similar manner as the AC/DC music samples in the AC/DC article. Is this allowed? They're in mp3 format. It would be a sample of the music from Andy Iona that you could listen to straight from the article. Is this a feasible idea? And how come these 2 songs are in fact public domain? Why only those 2? Anyways, if someone could help me figure this out I would really appreciate it. Thanks.- BiancaOfHell 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
a group of writers and amateur artists collaborated to produce several wikipedia articles with drawings as illustrations. The writers want to upload the artists' work with the artist chosen license (all are public domain, GFDL or Creative commons) but the options to pick a third party's selection are not selectable (e.g. under public domain it is "my work and I release to the public domain"). Does this mean the artists have to upload their images instead of the writers? Or is there some place I am missing where they can choose valid licenses for a third party's work? Fundulus 18:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)fundulus
Do I own the copyright of still photographs of performances, e.g., dance, theatrical, and music? My impression is that such photographs are derivative works and only video (or in the case of music, audio) recordings would violate the copyright of the performers. Is this correct? Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The Smithsonian is administered and funded by the U.S. government, but I am not sure whether, strictly speaking, it is part of the government, and whether its works fall in the public domain. To further confuse matters, the Smithsonian does assert copyright for its works: [3]. A couple of years ago I uploaded Image:StrohViolinFromSI.jpg and obtained permission from the Smithsonian to use the image on Wikipedia. For some reason I tagged it with "fair use" but this isn't applicable (and I thought I would have known better at the time). Now the image is (rightly) tagged for deletion because it doesn't qualify as fair use. Does {{ PD-USGov}} apply? Alternatively, wasn't there a tag that said "public domain AND used with permission" or has such a template been deprecated? (One other possible issue is that I can no longer locate this image on the original website, so I can't cite the URL to give the exact source.) It is no big loss if the image is deleted, because someone has added a second image to the article. But I would also suggest that we keep the image if possible. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Are NATO images within the public domain? -- Strangerer ( Talk | Contribs) 09:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
no -- 84.60.240.164 18:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
As an example, consider the 1911 British Pharmaceutical Codex [4] on www.henriettesherbal.com . If I understand the Wikipedia policy correctly, it says that in the U.S., despite what the source website says, editors are freely allowed to copy the full plaintext of a Codex entry and drop it into a new article (with credit required to the 1911 Codex, for ethical reasons only). It's also clear that copying any element of the framing graphics or HTML code would be copyright infringement. But is that actually what comes out of the legal system? For example, if there is any error or change present in the copied plaintext, even though the site represents itself as a copy of the public domain text, then does putting it into Wikipedia open the way for legal action? I understand, of course, that someone did put in a lot of work to put the book into HTML form, and did the world a favor putting it online - unfortunately the issue here is not whether we should be grateful, but what is legal. Mike Serfas 03:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Do movies become public domain at some point in time? I am particularly interested in The Story of the Kelly Gang, 1906 (Australia) - ie it was relased 101 years ago. Ga rr ie 05:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
In response to the American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term, the Reclaim the Rule of the Shorter Term Petition has been made from Meta.-- Jusjih 22:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there a guideline for use of orphan images on Wikipedia? For example, the Early Aviator website has published thousands of aviation images dating from the 19th century up until just after World War I. In many (but far from all) cases, it would seem that the photographer is unknown and unknowable, but it would not be unreasonable to assume that s/he might have lived until the 1970s or 80s. The site owner states "I believe all images linked from this page are in the public domain (unless otherwise indicated", and I've noticed a few of these images starting to make their way into Wikipedia and Commons. Any guidance would be appreciated! BTW - is there a better place to post copyright-related questions like this? -- Rlandmann 05:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Template:PD-Old regime Iraq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. 15:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by the advice given here for artworks. It seems to bear little resemblance to the legal situation.
First, it states that only U.S. works can be considered public domain based on their publication date -- a rule we don't apply to anything else. I can't see any sense to this. There are no special copyright terms for paintings; the only thing that makes them unusual from a copyright standpoint is that they so often aren't published the same year they're created. If you can prove the publication date, then exactly the same rules apply to them as to any other work.
On the other hand, the guideline suggests that all works of painters who died 70 or more years ago are public domain in the U.S. But as the copyright chart compiled by Peter Hirtle makes clear, the only way that a painting could be public domain in the U.S. under the life+70 rule is if it managed to go unpublished at least until January 1, 2003. That's likely to be true only for a few particularly obscure works. If the painting was in any significant exhibition in the last thirty or forty years, then it almost certainly appeared in a fully illustrated catalogue, and the life+70 rule will not apply. We must have many copyright violations tagged {{ PD-art-life-70}} based on this advice, especially among works created after 1922 by artists who died after 1925, which are very unlikely to be public domain. —Cel ithemis 17:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this is misleading and I removed the heavy emphasis on the 70 p.m.a. rule. Haukur 18:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid these changes are incorrect. If a painting created by an artist who died 71 years ago was first published between 1923 and 1977, it is not in the public domain (unless copyright was lost due to lack of registration, nonrenewal, etc., but we'd have to specifically prove that). So unfortunately we do need publication details even for the works of artists who have been dead 70 years. — Celithemis 23:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi there
User:Kid063 asked me a question about what to tag images available on the State Library of NSW website.
My brief look into it shows that if they had the actual photo and scanned it then it could be uploaded with {{ PD-Australia}}. But State Library of NSW is claiming copyright to (at the very least) the scanned image.
This seems to me to be identical to User:Bukvoed's question above, Scanning images from a book - ie the State Library's claim is "copyfraud". The scanned image in question is here (with catalogue information). Looking at the highest resolution scanned image on the site, they haven't done anything artistic, just scanned it at the highest available resolution.
So - given the original image meets {{ PD-Australia}} - do the scanned images also meet {{ PD-Australia}} or would someone have to rescan them?
Ga rr ie 23:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The article states, "Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism." I would like to clarify this sentence so that it makes clear that when quoting public domain sources, one must not only provide a source, but should also set any quoted text off with quotation marks or block quotation, so that it's absolutely clear what comes from the source, & what does not.
See also Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Quoting public domain sources & plagiarism for context about how this concern came up. Essentially, I'm dealing with an editor who insists that if a quoted text comes from a public domain source, it is not necessary to set it off as a quotation, so long as the source is given. Comment? -- Yksin 19:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I am confused about Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts. If I use a program such as Inkscape to trace the shape of a series of letters, and those shapes are determined by a copyrighted computer font, who (if anyone) owns the copyright over the resulting trace? Examples are Image:WikipediaSignpostHead.svg, Image:Los Angeles Times.svg, and Image:The New York Times.svg. — Remember the dot ( talk) 17:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I have added {{
PD-EU-no author disclosure}}, with related category. This would apply to all nations that are signatories of the Berne Convention and the 1993 Copyright Directive arising out of the Berne Convention. 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.
,,,,,,,,, Perhaps after further discussion here and on any other relevant talk pages, this might ultimately end up being moved to a template title that more explicitly conveys 70 years after date it was first shown to the public rather than 70 years p.m.a. But for now, it's designated as
Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure. I recommend that it at least be semi-protected. ...
Kenosis 13:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
As with all images at present including ones with an explicit free license, those which use a template of this kind will inevitably be subject to discussion and scrutiny. The Wundt image already states "circa 1880". The other Wundt image, well, Wundt died in 1920. And Nietzsche died in 1900. The Einstein-Planck image already explicitly states that the image was taken in June, 1929. I would add that it circulated immediately thereafter, and has been disseminated via multiple routes without visible claim of authorship by the original photographer. The Einstein-Planck image was the subject of this Drv in which it became apparent that 70yrs-pma requires a public disclosure of an author, and that published photographs with an anonymous photographer are an entirely separate legal category under the 1993 EU Copyright Directive in all countries that follow the EU convention. ... Kenosis 17:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry, I just saw this, otherwise I would have responded sooner. In direct response to Megapixie's comment just above, the issue of intentional alteration or misrepresentation of sources and attributions of photographs is an issue in nearly every category including GNU and other free-licenses. This issue is dealt with in all copyright legislation worldwide, and generally dealt with quite strictly. Many provisions are provided for people who misrepresent the copyright status of images by making the claimant "mysteriously disappear" when they copy and paste the image, or by claiming to have snapped a photograph that someone else in fact "snapped" it--even up to criminal penalties for such misrepresentations. The responsibility is placed upon the person who altered the "copyright management information" (CMI) or on those who knowingly distribute such materials. (See, e.g., the U.S. rules with respect to as of 2002. See also, Digital Millennium Copyright Act.) And, there are also important provisions that reasonable notice be provided by persons claiming copyright to those who use such things as basic digitial images in good faith (can't cite you "book, chapter and verse" right now, but please see my last paragraph below).
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 conceivably fail to apply 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 13:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The USS Barney (TB-25) article is composed entirely of unedited text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Is this allowed? I would have thought that one would be allowed to take certain portions of public domain text, and edit them for Wikipedia, but this is a flat-out direct copy. -- DearPrudence 06:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
"Because the URAA became effective only on January 1, 1996 (half a year after the EU directive), any copyrights restored in the EU by the directive also became restored in the U.S."
I'm not sure this is correct. Many countries only implemented the EU directive after that date. Haukur 22:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added the following template: Template:PD-Pre1964 to accompany Template:PD-Pre1978. I have not yet placed it in the project pages such as Wikipedia:Image copyright tags because of the need to agree on a standard for uploaders and/or those who follow up to provide a statement that they did a search of the USCO records under the authors name, publisher's name, etc. Discussion is presently at Template_talk:PD-Pre1964, in addition to here. If others would wish to consolidate this discussion elsewhere, please agree on it and note it here so everybody can know where to discuss.
Template:PD-Pre1964 is a fundamental, vitally important category of images in the United States publisehd between 1923 and 1963. Only about 10% of filed copyrights were renewed, and a far lower percentage of the total published material in the US was ever renewed. As such, it represents a valuable public-domain resource pool for WP, and I think it's important to settle on a standard expectation of what the showing should be by the uploader. Since it is virtually impossible to prove a negative, I suggest that at minimum requiring a statement of the uploader that s/he was able to identify the author's name or name of an assignee with a date of copyright, and have done a search of the Copyright Office records in the years that apply, which are the years equivalent to 26, 27 and 28 years after original publication. Images without an explicit copyright notice identifying the copyright claim should, of course, consider using Template:PD-Pre1978 instead, or consider submission of an image under "fair use" and the WP:NFCC. ... Kenosis 22:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course is should be verifiable. Today, they're almost all verifiable online. Soon, old renewals of "art" will be online too. But as a practical matter, virtually no photographs were individually renewed back in that time, because the primary issue was seen as who owned the negative. ... Kenosis 17:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
<unindent>Another thing. As to the notion currently prevalent in WP that the failure to be able to access copyright renewals of "art" online, the definition of "art" is critical. Quoting from the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998 (US), in turn citing the WIPO :
The “WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty” is the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty concluded at Geneva, Switzerland, on December 20, 1996.22
A “work of visual art” is —
(1) a painting, drawing, print or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture, in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author; or
(2) a still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes only, existing in a single copy that is signed by the author, or in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author.
,br>...
Kenosis 18:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
(iii) Class VA: Works of the visual arts. This class includes all published and unpublished pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works. Examples: Two dimensional and three dimensional works of the fine, graphic, and applied arts; photographs; prints and art reproductions; maps, globes, and charts; technical drawings, diagrams, and models; and pictorial or graphic labels and advertisements. — [5]
I'll need to get back to y'all later or over the weekend-- busy in "real life" right now. There is, unfortunately, a very clumsy situation on the wiki at the moment, just in case anyone hadn't noticed. Massive amounts of rumor and half-baked half-truth about copyright considerations, a lot of unnecessary angry arguments over images that other users have chosen to use on the articles they've worked on, etc., etc. The reference to "art" is there because one of the arguments about US publications 1923-1963 is that "art" is not yet online to be checked for coypright renewals between 1950 and 1977. And, generally speaking, mass disseminated photo images are not properly classified as "art". Sorry I didn't make the connection clear. Remember please, the relevant issue in this case is the timespan 1950-1977, back in time to prior to the WIPO, not forward in time to now. Talk later. ... Kenosis 11:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The sentence on public records from U.S. state governments seems misleading. Here is how a law professor specializing in the subject put it in a peer-reviewed article:
Perritt goes on to site several supporting court decisions concerning state (not federal) records. The Feist case cited in the passage quoted is the Supreme Court's decision in Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991.) Since the current version is misleading about this, I am correcting the portion about state government records. ← BenB4 18:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Iamunkown is more-or-less correct. Public records are any records made available to the public, whether by choice of the governmental entity or by legal requirement. It has nothing to do with copyright. ... Kenosis 21:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC) ... State government publications, on the other hand, are documents intentionally circulated, i.e., published. Determining copyright status of state-government publications can be extremely difficult for publications after March 1, 1989 (because no copyright notice is required to claim copyright in the US after this date). The issue typically is irrelevant for most practical purposes outside of Wikipedia. ... Kenosis 21:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Recognizing that there is a great deal of progress still to be made in the WP community gaining a more thorough undestanding of copyright considerations, I suggest tagging this Larry Craig image in the way that Image:Oswaldneworleans.jpg is presently tagged, at least until this can be sorted out. ... Kenosis 15:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC) ... I now see that Lwalt has tagged the Craig image in this fashion. Given the problem with potential retention of copyright by US state, county and local governments without notice of copyright for post-March1-1989 material, this would appear to be the correct approach. Indeed, given that non-federal governments in the US can assert copyright for material created or published after February 1989, fair use non-replaceable would appear to be the correct standard for all such material used on the wiki. ... Kenosis 16:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe the Minnesota opinion to which Lwalt refers is this Minnesota Department of Administration Advisory Opinion:94-057:
Opinion:
Based on the correspondence provided in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Boe is as follows:
The position of the Department of Natural Resources that it can limit Mr. Boe's use of public data, is not in compliance with the presumption of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, that, unless clearly specified by the legislature, the public's right of access to and use of public government data cannot be curtailed by a government entity's claim of intellectual property rights in those data.
Signed: Debra Rae Anderson, Commissioner. Dated: December 28, 1994
Thus, although the state government can hold copyright, additional questions remain as to what extent state governments can legally limit use of the public material(s), a question that will likely vary from state to state, and also need to be in accordance with federal statutory and case law. Again, there's a great deal for the community to learn here, which will, of course, take time and attention. ... Kenosis 16:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I've protected this page for 48 hours. Ben, you don't currently have anywhere close to consensus for this change. I've given you a 48-hour window to try to gain it; if you don't have it then, please do not resume revert-warring. Chick Bowen 00:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The update to my earlier message is lengthy, so bear with me as I explain what I found and whether my view changed from the earlier reply. I placed the message under a separate heading because of the length of the response and so that the message does not become lost among myriad of responses already provided here.
I did a search to find information in the Minnesota laws about booking photographs on Lexis-Nexis database (I have access to this database only because of my current student status at the moment). I want to preface my input here by saying that I'm 'not an attorney, nor authorized to practice anywhere in the world, let alone in the U.S. This information is included here to support how I view the status of the booking photograph (mugshot) of Sen. Craig.
I found a law review article that was written by Margaret Westin, Assistant County Attorney for Dakota County, Minnesota, that provided some direction to find other information. The article, The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act: A Practitioner's Guide and Observations on Access to Government Information, can be found in the William Mitchell Law Review at 22 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 839 (1996). Here's an excerpt from that article, including footnotes. In particular, see footnote 276, which might answer some of our questions on this board regarding the 1994 opinion in general and points out an important point in this discussion about the booking photograph (mugshot) released by the airport police department in particular:
References in excerpt:
268 Op. Comm'r Dep't Admin. 95-004, at 5 (1995).
269 Op. Comm'r Dep't Admin. 94-020 (1994).
270 Id. at 2.
271 Minnesota Statutes § 13.85, subdivision 1 (1994) states as follows:
Definition. As used in this section, "corrections and detention data" means data on individuals created, collected, used or maintained because of their lawful confinement or detainment in state reformatories, prisons and correctional facilities, municipal or county jails, lockups, work houses, work farms and all other correctional and detention facilities.
272 Op. Comm'r Dep't Admin. 95-004, at 2 (1995).
273 Id. at 3.
274 Id.
275 Id.
276 The Minnesota Legislature added a specific classification for booking photos in the Act of June 1, 1995. 1995 Minn. Laws 259. Booking photos are now classified as public data under the statute. Id. at § 23, subd. 17(b). However, a law enforcement agency may withhold booking photographs if the agency determines that access will adversely affect an active investigation. Id.
* * *
Here is where the Minnesota legislature amended the statute to specifically address the issue of booking photographs.
From what I can determine under the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, data for both non-criminal and criminal acts is classified as either public, private or confidential. Data termed as "public" can be released to any person for any reason, while "private" data can only be released to the subject or an entity authorized by the subject or by law to receive the data. Data considered "confidential" is not available to both the subject and the public.
In all, I did not find anything that suggest that booking photographs are public domain -- these photos are only available publicly, unless the release of the photo interfere with an active investigation. Also, although the Minnesota statute shows that public data collected by Minnesota "shall be public unless classified by statute, or temporary classification pursuant to 13.06, or federal law," I did not find anything that explicitly specified that data of this type is considered public domain as the meaning of public. I interpreted the meaning of public as publicly available with little or no restrictions. I would think that federal law only supersedes state law in cases of the fair use copyright issues.
Although I relied originally on the 1994 Minnesota opinion mentioned on this board, the mugshot shot released by the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport police still appears to be copyrighted to the State of Minnesota, since this photograph is part of the state's official records (including the investigative records) regarding the senator and the statute does not explicitly define public to mean the same as public domain. Even in its statute, Minnesota mentions that "data on individuals" is defined as "all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data...." (emphasis mine) So, the key words here are that "government data," not "public domain" data, apply to the booking photograph (mugshot). If this photo is considered to be in the public domain, the Minnesota police -- or any police force for that matter -- would have no authority to prevent the release of the photo under any circumstances, unlike what is explicitly stated in the Minnesota statute. Therefore, the use of a public domain (PD) tag for the Sen. Craig mugshot would be inappropriate for licensing, and the "non-free mugshot" tag (with a non-replaceable reference in the fair use rationale) is applicable instead as is the case now.
That's the best that I can come up with at this point. → Lwalt ♦ talk 19:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice work, Lwalt. In other words, post-March1-1989 state government-produced documents, public records, should be regarded as copyrighted unless the government decides to free-license the particular document (a not-unlikely scenario in the future). The issue of the right to fair use of that document is likely secure in light of laws such as the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. All U.S. states have similar laws (particularly following the Freedom of Information Act, originally 1964), but which can vary in the amount of permission to use government-produced public records. The right to fair use remains secure under US copyright law "fair use criteria" if it was published, such as was the case with the mugshots made available to the press. ... Kenosis 20:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm an intellectual property lawyer. States can and do own copyrights in their creative works - for example, where a state commissions the creation of a seal or the design of a website including photographs or other creative elements, copyright in those are owned by the state. They can be registered, and infringers can be sued. You would have to check individual state laws to see what the state permits to enter the public domain. However, as to legislation, court opinions, state collections of statistics, and records composed of the reporting of otherwise publicly available information on a form (such as an arrest record or a state-generated invoice) no copyright would apply. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Without a specific statute or applicable case to point to, we have no indication that non-creative publicly available information is in fact considered in the public domain by a particular governmental entity such as the Minneapolis Police Department, unless the state specifies it in a statute or an applicable court orders such a status bestowed upon it. As I said farther above in this talk subsection, as a practical matter, one of the very few places it matters a great deal is in Wikipedia, because the restrictions on "fair-use" are tighter than lawfully required and hotly contested at present. And the Minnesota opinion proffering that public disclosure laws trump copyright law in the particular case found above by Lwalt doesn't clearly settle the issue. Additionally, as just indicated, there's the question whether such things as booking photos and other products of purely ministerial duties meet the creativity threshold necessary for copyright protection. But Wikipedia isn't in the business of testing these things, so to speak. Generalizations, even if accurate, are insufficient for our present needs. We need citations to go on w.r.t. assessments of specific classes of photographs and written material in order to properly categorize the material in the wake of the Wikimedia Board Reseolution of March, 2007. This is what Lwalt, along with several other WP users, was working on. .... Kenosis 22:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
While this discussion seems to have gone dormant (or migrated elsewhere, which is how I just discovered this) it may important to clarify that under at least one state's specific laws public data are in the public domain. In Minnesota the government cannot claim copyright for such data absent specific legislation allowing such a claim. The Minnesota Commissioner of Administration (who is charged with authority under the Minnesota Data Practices Act), has stated:
. . . a fundamental principle of the M[innesota] G[overnment] D[ata] P[ractices] A[ct] is that anyone may use public data, for any purpose.
. . . unless clearly specified by the legislature, the public's right of access to and use of public government data cannot be curtailed by a government entity's claim of intellectual property rights in those data. [6]
The case at issue there involved an attempt by a government agency to claim copyright. the Commissioner rejected that claim. Public data therefore are not subject to copyright in Minnesota without specific legislative authority. As mentioned above, that may not be the case everywhere, and a state's laws need to be checked before claiming PD status. Kablammo 13:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear English Wikipedia Community.
I clearly understand, that some works of non-USA-authors can be in PD in USA, but copyrighted outside USA. But I have also great confidence, that we can not use this possibility here, in English Wikipedia, as well it is not used at Wikimedia Commons too.
I clearly understand, that English Wikipedia is not Wikimedia Commons, and both of them can have got difference regulations in the license policy domain. But I also suggest: NOT in this case.
There are main theses:
As result.
Alex Spade 17:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain#.7B.7BPD-US-1923-abroad.7D.7D. I didn't create the template, by the way. Tyrenius 03:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Per a discussion thread in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content and a related dispute over the public domain status of a historical Time magazine cover, I searched the U.S. Copyright Office records for copyright renewals by Time Inc. on editions of Time magazine originally published between 1923—when the magazine first appeared—and 1963, the last year for which such renewals were required to maintain copyright. For the searchable U.S. Copyright Office database, my primary string consisted of Keywords: +Time +vol +## (vol. 56, covering July–December 1950, is the first volume for which renewals appear in the searchable database). Where this method revealed gaps in renewals, other strings were used to verify that the gaps were not the result of syntactical recording errors. For 1923 through the first half of 1950 (i.e., for renewals filed between 1950 and 1977), the authoritative UPenn catalog of directly photocopied U.S. Copyright Office copyright renewal records was employed.
This search reveals that Time Inc. did not renew the copyright on editions published between 1923 and 1933. It renewed the copyright on most, but not all of the editions of Time magazine published between 1934 and 1963. The available evidence shows that copyright renewals were not filed for the following editions (dates given are the magazine cover dates, not the original copyright dates, which were often several days before the cover date):
My question here is if there is an effective way of maintaining this data--not as direct evidence itself that a given edition is out of copyright (the relevant records database should always be referenced for that purpose), but as a guide for editors researching the status of specific editions.— DCGeist 22:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This image was removed from Old Scona Academic High School under the claim that the subject of the image (a former teacher) did not give permission to use their photograph. Since the image was taken (probably by a student) and uploaded under the PD license, is consent required from the image's subject? UnfriendlyFire 00:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me if I am posting on the wrong page. I have consulted with a number of knowledgeable professionals ( I I dislike the term "lawyers") and have been told the laws of the base country ( if Wiki's base is in US, then the applicable laws are American) have dominence over other claims.
Please advise, I am willing to support any case that has a legitmate and basis if it is integral to the future of this domain.
I feel that, regardless of the occasional prank and buffoon, this is the single, most effective way of combating ignorance and oppression by democratic governemts, rational thinkers, and other free-minded people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedoggedtruth ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
What is the copyright status of the advertisements published in a magazine? Advertisements published in US magazines prior to 1978 typically do not have a © notice on themselves, but the magazine usually has. This probably does not mean that the magazine publisher owns any rights on the advertisement, which was in many cases published in various magazines at the time. However does this © sign on the magazine imply that all the contents, including the advertisements, is copyrighted to its respective authors, e.g. the advertising company? The same question is probably valid for photographs published in a magazine, with an author's name but no specific © notice other than that of the full magazine. -- Rebollo fr 17:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know where I can find a discussion about the copyright status of Google Earth material? I'm writing an article about a public statue. Another Wikipedian has found it on Google Earth and has managed to zoom in on it, to the point where it is clear enough to use in the article. Question is: what is the copyright status? Note: it's not an image added by a Google Earth user; it's an image obtained by zooming in on the satellite photograph. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to note here that everything the BLS in the Dept. of Labor publishes is in the PD. They merely request to be sourced. [7] I think there should be listed under Public Domain: Public Records. I also think that we should include links to Public Domain databases like Domain Info and other lists. Jadeddissonance ( talk) 18:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Don't know where else to put this:
http://content.cdlib.org/search?style=oac-img;sort=title;relation=ark:/13030/kt5b69q5bc
Note that not all are PD, however many explicitly state their PDness and are published before 1923/09, etc, etc... 68.39.174.238 06:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I've done several laps of every copyright related wiki page I can find and haven't found a right place for this question, and this looks like the closest...
On my office bookshelf, I have 7 engineering and mathematics textbooks dated 1914, 1924, 1930, 1933, 1934 and (2*) 1937 that I inherited from my grandfather. There may be more elsewhere but I haven't looked. I would like to work out whether the content is now PD but simply don't have the time to wade through and work out the process necessary.
I'm just wondering if there is a page, wikiproject or any volunteers who will do the online searching to find out if a book's copyright has expired and it is hence able to be used in wiki.
A page of requests and results would be really useful. If one exists, it would be useful to make links to it more obvious. If it doesn't exist, it might make a very useful wikiproject. -- Athol Mullen 06:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"In short: Pre-1949 Karsh images are in the public domain only in Canada."
Not true. Many other countries have had fixed (as opposed to relative to lifespan) copyright terms for photographs in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.82.153 ( talk • contribs) 19:35, January 29, 2007
Hello. Here [1] and here [2] are 2 Andy Iona songs that I would like to upload here. They're in the public domain. I would like to include them in a similar manner as the AC/DC music samples in the AC/DC article. Is this allowed? They're in mp3 format. It would be a sample of the music from Andy Iona that you could listen to straight from the article. Is this a feasible idea? And how come these 2 songs are in fact public domain? Why only those 2? Anyways, if someone could help me figure this out I would really appreciate it. Thanks.- BiancaOfHell 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
a group of writers and amateur artists collaborated to produce several wikipedia articles with drawings as illustrations. The writers want to upload the artists' work with the artist chosen license (all are public domain, GFDL or Creative commons) but the options to pick a third party's selection are not selectable (e.g. under public domain it is "my work and I release to the public domain"). Does this mean the artists have to upload their images instead of the writers? Or is there some place I am missing where they can choose valid licenses for a third party's work? Fundulus 18:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)fundulus
Do I own the copyright of still photographs of performances, e.g., dance, theatrical, and music? My impression is that such photographs are derivative works and only video (or in the case of music, audio) recordings would violate the copyright of the performers. Is this correct? Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The Smithsonian is administered and funded by the U.S. government, but I am not sure whether, strictly speaking, it is part of the government, and whether its works fall in the public domain. To further confuse matters, the Smithsonian does assert copyright for its works: [3]. A couple of years ago I uploaded Image:StrohViolinFromSI.jpg and obtained permission from the Smithsonian to use the image on Wikipedia. For some reason I tagged it with "fair use" but this isn't applicable (and I thought I would have known better at the time). Now the image is (rightly) tagged for deletion because it doesn't qualify as fair use. Does {{ PD-USGov}} apply? Alternatively, wasn't there a tag that said "public domain AND used with permission" or has such a template been deprecated? (One other possible issue is that I can no longer locate this image on the original website, so I can't cite the URL to give the exact source.) It is no big loss if the image is deleted, because someone has added a second image to the article. But I would also suggest that we keep the image if possible. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Are NATO images within the public domain? -- Strangerer ( Talk | Contribs) 09:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
no -- 84.60.240.164 18:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
As an example, consider the 1911 British Pharmaceutical Codex [4] on www.henriettesherbal.com . If I understand the Wikipedia policy correctly, it says that in the U.S., despite what the source website says, editors are freely allowed to copy the full plaintext of a Codex entry and drop it into a new article (with credit required to the 1911 Codex, for ethical reasons only). It's also clear that copying any element of the framing graphics or HTML code would be copyright infringement. But is that actually what comes out of the legal system? For example, if there is any error or change present in the copied plaintext, even though the site represents itself as a copy of the public domain text, then does putting it into Wikipedia open the way for legal action? I understand, of course, that someone did put in a lot of work to put the book into HTML form, and did the world a favor putting it online - unfortunately the issue here is not whether we should be grateful, but what is legal. Mike Serfas 03:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Do movies become public domain at some point in time? I am particularly interested in The Story of the Kelly Gang, 1906 (Australia) - ie it was relased 101 years ago. Ga rr ie 05:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
In response to the American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term, the Reclaim the Rule of the Shorter Term Petition has been made from Meta.-- Jusjih 22:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there a guideline for use of orphan images on Wikipedia? For example, the Early Aviator website has published thousands of aviation images dating from the 19th century up until just after World War I. In many (but far from all) cases, it would seem that the photographer is unknown and unknowable, but it would not be unreasonable to assume that s/he might have lived until the 1970s or 80s. The site owner states "I believe all images linked from this page are in the public domain (unless otherwise indicated", and I've noticed a few of these images starting to make their way into Wikipedia and Commons. Any guidance would be appreciated! BTW - is there a better place to post copyright-related questions like this? -- Rlandmann 05:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Template:PD-Old regime Iraq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. 15:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by the advice given here for artworks. It seems to bear little resemblance to the legal situation.
First, it states that only U.S. works can be considered public domain based on their publication date -- a rule we don't apply to anything else. I can't see any sense to this. There are no special copyright terms for paintings; the only thing that makes them unusual from a copyright standpoint is that they so often aren't published the same year they're created. If you can prove the publication date, then exactly the same rules apply to them as to any other work.
On the other hand, the guideline suggests that all works of painters who died 70 or more years ago are public domain in the U.S. But as the copyright chart compiled by Peter Hirtle makes clear, the only way that a painting could be public domain in the U.S. under the life+70 rule is if it managed to go unpublished at least until January 1, 2003. That's likely to be true only for a few particularly obscure works. If the painting was in any significant exhibition in the last thirty or forty years, then it almost certainly appeared in a fully illustrated catalogue, and the life+70 rule will not apply. We must have many copyright violations tagged {{ PD-art-life-70}} based on this advice, especially among works created after 1922 by artists who died after 1925, which are very unlikely to be public domain. —Cel ithemis 17:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this is misleading and I removed the heavy emphasis on the 70 p.m.a. rule. Haukur 18:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid these changes are incorrect. If a painting created by an artist who died 71 years ago was first published between 1923 and 1977, it is not in the public domain (unless copyright was lost due to lack of registration, nonrenewal, etc., but we'd have to specifically prove that). So unfortunately we do need publication details even for the works of artists who have been dead 70 years. — Celithemis 23:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi there
User:Kid063 asked me a question about what to tag images available on the State Library of NSW website.
My brief look into it shows that if they had the actual photo and scanned it then it could be uploaded with {{ PD-Australia}}. But State Library of NSW is claiming copyright to (at the very least) the scanned image.
This seems to me to be identical to User:Bukvoed's question above, Scanning images from a book - ie the State Library's claim is "copyfraud". The scanned image in question is here (with catalogue information). Looking at the highest resolution scanned image on the site, they haven't done anything artistic, just scanned it at the highest available resolution.
So - given the original image meets {{ PD-Australia}} - do the scanned images also meet {{ PD-Australia}} or would someone have to rescan them?
Ga rr ie 23:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The article states, "Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism." I would like to clarify this sentence so that it makes clear that when quoting public domain sources, one must not only provide a source, but should also set any quoted text off with quotation marks or block quotation, so that it's absolutely clear what comes from the source, & what does not.
See also Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Quoting public domain sources & plagiarism for context about how this concern came up. Essentially, I'm dealing with an editor who insists that if a quoted text comes from a public domain source, it is not necessary to set it off as a quotation, so long as the source is given. Comment? -- Yksin 19:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I am confused about Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts. If I use a program such as Inkscape to trace the shape of a series of letters, and those shapes are determined by a copyrighted computer font, who (if anyone) owns the copyright over the resulting trace? Examples are Image:WikipediaSignpostHead.svg, Image:Los Angeles Times.svg, and Image:The New York Times.svg. — Remember the dot ( talk) 17:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I have added {{
PD-EU-no author disclosure}}, with related category. This would apply to all nations that are signatories of the Berne Convention and the 1993 Copyright Directive arising out of the Berne Convention. 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.
,,,,,,,,, Perhaps after further discussion here and on any other relevant talk pages, this might ultimately end up being moved to a template title that more explicitly conveys 70 years after date it was first shown to the public rather than 70 years p.m.a. But for now, it's designated as
Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure. I recommend that it at least be semi-protected. ...
Kenosis 13:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
As with all images at present including ones with an explicit free license, those which use a template of this kind will inevitably be subject to discussion and scrutiny. The Wundt image already states "circa 1880". The other Wundt image, well, Wundt died in 1920. And Nietzsche died in 1900. The Einstein-Planck image already explicitly states that the image was taken in June, 1929. I would add that it circulated immediately thereafter, and has been disseminated via multiple routes without visible claim of authorship by the original photographer. The Einstein-Planck image was the subject of this Drv in which it became apparent that 70yrs-pma requires a public disclosure of an author, and that published photographs with an anonymous photographer are an entirely separate legal category under the 1993 EU Copyright Directive in all countries that follow the EU convention. ... Kenosis 17:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry, I just saw this, otherwise I would have responded sooner. In direct response to Megapixie's comment just above, the issue of intentional alteration or misrepresentation of sources and attributions of photographs is an issue in nearly every category including GNU and other free-licenses. This issue is dealt with in all copyright legislation worldwide, and generally dealt with quite strictly. Many provisions are provided for people who misrepresent the copyright status of images by making the claimant "mysteriously disappear" when they copy and paste the image, or by claiming to have snapped a photograph that someone else in fact "snapped" it--even up to criminal penalties for such misrepresentations. The responsibility is placed upon the person who altered the "copyright management information" (CMI) or on those who knowingly distribute such materials. (See, e.g., the U.S. rules with respect to as of 2002. See also, Digital Millennium Copyright Act.) And, there are also important provisions that reasonable notice be provided by persons claiming copyright to those who use such things as basic digitial images in good faith (can't cite you "book, chapter and verse" right now, but please see my last paragraph below).
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 conceivably fail to apply 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 13:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The USS Barney (TB-25) article is composed entirely of unedited text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Is this allowed? I would have thought that one would be allowed to take certain portions of public domain text, and edit them for Wikipedia, but this is a flat-out direct copy. -- DearPrudence 06:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
"Because the URAA became effective only on January 1, 1996 (half a year after the EU directive), any copyrights restored in the EU by the directive also became restored in the U.S."
I'm not sure this is correct. Many countries only implemented the EU directive after that date. Haukur 22:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added the following template: Template:PD-Pre1964 to accompany Template:PD-Pre1978. I have not yet placed it in the project pages such as Wikipedia:Image copyright tags because of the need to agree on a standard for uploaders and/or those who follow up to provide a statement that they did a search of the USCO records under the authors name, publisher's name, etc. Discussion is presently at Template_talk:PD-Pre1964, in addition to here. If others would wish to consolidate this discussion elsewhere, please agree on it and note it here so everybody can know where to discuss.
Template:PD-Pre1964 is a fundamental, vitally important category of images in the United States publisehd between 1923 and 1963. Only about 10% of filed copyrights were renewed, and a far lower percentage of the total published material in the US was ever renewed. As such, it represents a valuable public-domain resource pool for WP, and I think it's important to settle on a standard expectation of what the showing should be by the uploader. Since it is virtually impossible to prove a negative, I suggest that at minimum requiring a statement of the uploader that s/he was able to identify the author's name or name of an assignee with a date of copyright, and have done a search of the Copyright Office records in the years that apply, which are the years equivalent to 26, 27 and 28 years after original publication. Images without an explicit copyright notice identifying the copyright claim should, of course, consider using Template:PD-Pre1978 instead, or consider submission of an image under "fair use" and the WP:NFCC. ... Kenosis 22:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course is should be verifiable. Today, they're almost all verifiable online. Soon, old renewals of "art" will be online too. But as a practical matter, virtually no photographs were individually renewed back in that time, because the primary issue was seen as who owned the negative. ... Kenosis 17:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
<unindent>Another thing. As to the notion currently prevalent in WP that the failure to be able to access copyright renewals of "art" online, the definition of "art" is critical. Quoting from the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998 (US), in turn citing the WIPO :
The “WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty” is the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty concluded at Geneva, Switzerland, on December 20, 1996.22
A “work of visual art” is —
(1) a painting, drawing, print or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture, in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author; or
(2) a still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes only, existing in a single copy that is signed by the author, or in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author.
,br>...
Kenosis 18:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
(iii) Class VA: Works of the visual arts. This class includes all published and unpublished pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works. Examples: Two dimensional and three dimensional works of the fine, graphic, and applied arts; photographs; prints and art reproductions; maps, globes, and charts; technical drawings, diagrams, and models; and pictorial or graphic labels and advertisements. — [5]
I'll need to get back to y'all later or over the weekend-- busy in "real life" right now. There is, unfortunately, a very clumsy situation on the wiki at the moment, just in case anyone hadn't noticed. Massive amounts of rumor and half-baked half-truth about copyright considerations, a lot of unnecessary angry arguments over images that other users have chosen to use on the articles they've worked on, etc., etc. The reference to "art" is there because one of the arguments about US publications 1923-1963 is that "art" is not yet online to be checked for coypright renewals between 1950 and 1977. And, generally speaking, mass disseminated photo images are not properly classified as "art". Sorry I didn't make the connection clear. Remember please, the relevant issue in this case is the timespan 1950-1977, back in time to prior to the WIPO, not forward in time to now. Talk later. ... Kenosis 11:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The sentence on public records from U.S. state governments seems misleading. Here is how a law professor specializing in the subject put it in a peer-reviewed article:
Perritt goes on to site several supporting court decisions concerning state (not federal) records. The Feist case cited in the passage quoted is the Supreme Court's decision in Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991.) Since the current version is misleading about this, I am correcting the portion about state government records. ← BenB4 18:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Iamunkown is more-or-less correct. Public records are any records made available to the public, whether by choice of the governmental entity or by legal requirement. It has nothing to do with copyright. ... Kenosis 21:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC) ... State government publications, on the other hand, are documents intentionally circulated, i.e., published. Determining copyright status of state-government publications can be extremely difficult for publications after March 1, 1989 (because no copyright notice is required to claim copyright in the US after this date). The issue typically is irrelevant for most practical purposes outside of Wikipedia. ... Kenosis 21:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Recognizing that there is a great deal of progress still to be made in the WP community gaining a more thorough undestanding of copyright considerations, I suggest tagging this Larry Craig image in the way that Image:Oswaldneworleans.jpg is presently tagged, at least until this can be sorted out. ... Kenosis 15:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC) ... I now see that Lwalt has tagged the Craig image in this fashion. Given the problem with potential retention of copyright by US state, county and local governments without notice of copyright for post-March1-1989 material, this would appear to be the correct approach. Indeed, given that non-federal governments in the US can assert copyright for material created or published after February 1989, fair use non-replaceable would appear to be the correct standard for all such material used on the wiki. ... Kenosis 16:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe the Minnesota opinion to which Lwalt refers is this Minnesota Department of Administration Advisory Opinion:94-057:
Opinion:
Based on the correspondence provided in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Boe is as follows:
The position of the Department of Natural Resources that it can limit Mr. Boe's use of public data, is not in compliance with the presumption of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, that, unless clearly specified by the legislature, the public's right of access to and use of public government data cannot be curtailed by a government entity's claim of intellectual property rights in those data.
Signed: Debra Rae Anderson, Commissioner. Dated: December 28, 1994
Thus, although the state government can hold copyright, additional questions remain as to what extent state governments can legally limit use of the public material(s), a question that will likely vary from state to state, and also need to be in accordance with federal statutory and case law. Again, there's a great deal for the community to learn here, which will, of course, take time and attention. ... Kenosis 16:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I've protected this page for 48 hours. Ben, you don't currently have anywhere close to consensus for this change. I've given you a 48-hour window to try to gain it; if you don't have it then, please do not resume revert-warring. Chick Bowen 00:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The update to my earlier message is lengthy, so bear with me as I explain what I found and whether my view changed from the earlier reply. I placed the message under a separate heading because of the length of the response and so that the message does not become lost among myriad of responses already provided here.
I did a search to find information in the Minnesota laws about booking photographs on Lexis-Nexis database (I have access to this database only because of my current student status at the moment). I want to preface my input here by saying that I'm 'not an attorney, nor authorized to practice anywhere in the world, let alone in the U.S. This information is included here to support how I view the status of the booking photograph (mugshot) of Sen. Craig.
I found a law review article that was written by Margaret Westin, Assistant County Attorney for Dakota County, Minnesota, that provided some direction to find other information. The article, The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act: A Practitioner's Guide and Observations on Access to Government Information, can be found in the William Mitchell Law Review at 22 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 839 (1996). Here's an excerpt from that article, including footnotes. In particular, see footnote 276, which might answer some of our questions on this board regarding the 1994 opinion in general and points out an important point in this discussion about the booking photograph (mugshot) released by the airport police department in particular:
References in excerpt:
268 Op. Comm'r Dep't Admin. 95-004, at 5 (1995).
269 Op. Comm'r Dep't Admin. 94-020 (1994).
270 Id. at 2.
271 Minnesota Statutes § 13.85, subdivision 1 (1994) states as follows:
Definition. As used in this section, "corrections and detention data" means data on individuals created, collected, used or maintained because of their lawful confinement or detainment in state reformatories, prisons and correctional facilities, municipal or county jails, lockups, work houses, work farms and all other correctional and detention facilities.
272 Op. Comm'r Dep't Admin. 95-004, at 2 (1995).
273 Id. at 3.
274 Id.
275 Id.
276 The Minnesota Legislature added a specific classification for booking photos in the Act of June 1, 1995. 1995 Minn. Laws 259. Booking photos are now classified as public data under the statute. Id. at § 23, subd. 17(b). However, a law enforcement agency may withhold booking photographs if the agency determines that access will adversely affect an active investigation. Id.
* * *
Here is where the Minnesota legislature amended the statute to specifically address the issue of booking photographs.
From what I can determine under the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, data for both non-criminal and criminal acts is classified as either public, private or confidential. Data termed as "public" can be released to any person for any reason, while "private" data can only be released to the subject or an entity authorized by the subject or by law to receive the data. Data considered "confidential" is not available to both the subject and the public.
In all, I did not find anything that suggest that booking photographs are public domain -- these photos are only available publicly, unless the release of the photo interfere with an active investigation. Also, although the Minnesota statute shows that public data collected by Minnesota "shall be public unless classified by statute, or temporary classification pursuant to 13.06, or federal law," I did not find anything that explicitly specified that data of this type is considered public domain as the meaning of public. I interpreted the meaning of public as publicly available with little or no restrictions. I would think that federal law only supersedes state law in cases of the fair use copyright issues.
Although I relied originally on the 1994 Minnesota opinion mentioned on this board, the mugshot shot released by the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport police still appears to be copyrighted to the State of Minnesota, since this photograph is part of the state's official records (including the investigative records) regarding the senator and the statute does not explicitly define public to mean the same as public domain. Even in its statute, Minnesota mentions that "data on individuals" is defined as "all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data...." (emphasis mine) So, the key words here are that "government data," not "public domain" data, apply to the booking photograph (mugshot). If this photo is considered to be in the public domain, the Minnesota police -- or any police force for that matter -- would have no authority to prevent the release of the photo under any circumstances, unlike what is explicitly stated in the Minnesota statute. Therefore, the use of a public domain (PD) tag for the Sen. Craig mugshot would be inappropriate for licensing, and the "non-free mugshot" tag (with a non-replaceable reference in the fair use rationale) is applicable instead as is the case now.
That's the best that I can come up with at this point. → Lwalt ♦ talk 19:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice work, Lwalt. In other words, post-March1-1989 state government-produced documents, public records, should be regarded as copyrighted unless the government decides to free-license the particular document (a not-unlikely scenario in the future). The issue of the right to fair use of that document is likely secure in light of laws such as the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. All U.S. states have similar laws (particularly following the Freedom of Information Act, originally 1964), but which can vary in the amount of permission to use government-produced public records. The right to fair use remains secure under US copyright law "fair use criteria" if it was published, such as was the case with the mugshots made available to the press. ... Kenosis 20:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm an intellectual property lawyer. States can and do own copyrights in their creative works - for example, where a state commissions the creation of a seal or the design of a website including photographs or other creative elements, copyright in those are owned by the state. They can be registered, and infringers can be sued. You would have to check individual state laws to see what the state permits to enter the public domain. However, as to legislation, court opinions, state collections of statistics, and records composed of the reporting of otherwise publicly available information on a form (such as an arrest record or a state-generated invoice) no copyright would apply. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Without a specific statute or applicable case to point to, we have no indication that non-creative publicly available information is in fact considered in the public domain by a particular governmental entity such as the Minneapolis Police Department, unless the state specifies it in a statute or an applicable court orders such a status bestowed upon it. As I said farther above in this talk subsection, as a practical matter, one of the very few places it matters a great deal is in Wikipedia, because the restrictions on "fair-use" are tighter than lawfully required and hotly contested at present. And the Minnesota opinion proffering that public disclosure laws trump copyright law in the particular case found above by Lwalt doesn't clearly settle the issue. Additionally, as just indicated, there's the question whether such things as booking photos and other products of purely ministerial duties meet the creativity threshold necessary for copyright protection. But Wikipedia isn't in the business of testing these things, so to speak. Generalizations, even if accurate, are insufficient for our present needs. We need citations to go on w.r.t. assessments of specific classes of photographs and written material in order to properly categorize the material in the wake of the Wikimedia Board Reseolution of March, 2007. This is what Lwalt, along with several other WP users, was working on. .... Kenosis 22:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
While this discussion seems to have gone dormant (or migrated elsewhere, which is how I just discovered this) it may important to clarify that under at least one state's specific laws public data are in the public domain. In Minnesota the government cannot claim copyright for such data absent specific legislation allowing such a claim. The Minnesota Commissioner of Administration (who is charged with authority under the Minnesota Data Practices Act), has stated:
. . . a fundamental principle of the M[innesota] G[overnment] D[ata] P[ractices] A[ct] is that anyone may use public data, for any purpose.
. . . unless clearly specified by the legislature, the public's right of access to and use of public government data cannot be curtailed by a government entity's claim of intellectual property rights in those data. [6]
The case at issue there involved an attempt by a government agency to claim copyright. the Commissioner rejected that claim. Public data therefore are not subject to copyright in Minnesota without specific legislative authority. As mentioned above, that may not be the case everywhere, and a state's laws need to be checked before claiming PD status. Kablammo 13:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear English Wikipedia Community.
I clearly understand, that some works of non-USA-authors can be in PD in USA, but copyrighted outside USA. But I have also great confidence, that we can not use this possibility here, in English Wikipedia, as well it is not used at Wikimedia Commons too.
I clearly understand, that English Wikipedia is not Wikimedia Commons, and both of them can have got difference regulations in the license policy domain. But I also suggest: NOT in this case.
There are main theses:
As result.
Alex Spade 17:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain#.7B.7BPD-US-1923-abroad.7D.7D. I didn't create the template, by the way. Tyrenius 03:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Per a discussion thread in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content and a related dispute over the public domain status of a historical Time magazine cover, I searched the U.S. Copyright Office records for copyright renewals by Time Inc. on editions of Time magazine originally published between 1923—when the magazine first appeared—and 1963, the last year for which such renewals were required to maintain copyright. For the searchable U.S. Copyright Office database, my primary string consisted of Keywords: +Time +vol +## (vol. 56, covering July–December 1950, is the first volume for which renewals appear in the searchable database). Where this method revealed gaps in renewals, other strings were used to verify that the gaps were not the result of syntactical recording errors. For 1923 through the first half of 1950 (i.e., for renewals filed between 1950 and 1977), the authoritative UPenn catalog of directly photocopied U.S. Copyright Office copyright renewal records was employed.
This search reveals that Time Inc. did not renew the copyright on editions published between 1923 and 1933. It renewed the copyright on most, but not all of the editions of Time magazine published between 1934 and 1963. The available evidence shows that copyright renewals were not filed for the following editions (dates given are the magazine cover dates, not the original copyright dates, which were often several days before the cover date):
My question here is if there is an effective way of maintaining this data--not as direct evidence itself that a given edition is out of copyright (the relevant records database should always be referenced for that purpose), but as a guide for editors researching the status of specific editions.— DCGeist 22:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This image was removed from Old Scona Academic High School under the claim that the subject of the image (a former teacher) did not give permission to use their photograph. Since the image was taken (probably by a student) and uploaded under the PD license, is consent required from the image's subject? UnfriendlyFire 00:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me if I am posting on the wrong page. I have consulted with a number of knowledgeable professionals ( I I dislike the term "lawyers") and have been told the laws of the base country ( if Wiki's base is in US, then the applicable laws are American) have dominence over other claims.
Please advise, I am willing to support any case that has a legitmate and basis if it is integral to the future of this domain.
I feel that, regardless of the occasional prank and buffoon, this is the single, most effective way of combating ignorance and oppression by democratic governemts, rational thinkers, and other free-minded people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedoggedtruth ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
What is the copyright status of the advertisements published in a magazine? Advertisements published in US magazines prior to 1978 typically do not have a © notice on themselves, but the magazine usually has. This probably does not mean that the magazine publisher owns any rights on the advertisement, which was in many cases published in various magazines at the time. However does this © sign on the magazine imply that all the contents, including the advertisements, is copyrighted to its respective authors, e.g. the advertising company? The same question is probably valid for photographs published in a magazine, with an author's name but no specific © notice other than that of the full magazine. -- Rebollo fr 17:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know where I can find a discussion about the copyright status of Google Earth material? I'm writing an article about a public statue. Another Wikipedian has found it on Google Earth and has managed to zoom in on it, to the point where it is clear enough to use in the article. Question is: what is the copyright status? Note: it's not an image added by a Google Earth user; it's an image obtained by zooming in on the satellite photograph. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to note here that everything the BLS in the Dept. of Labor publishes is in the PD. They merely request to be sourced. [7] I think there should be listed under Public Domain: Public Records. I also think that we should include links to Public Domain databases like Domain Info and other lists. Jadeddissonance ( talk) 18:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)