![]() | 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 2005 | Archive 2006 | Archive 2007 | Archive 2008 |
To some, the presumption seems to be that the Edison Records recordings are out of copyright, or that copyright effectively does not apply in the case of the Edison Records recordings. In particular, there is the {{PD-Edison_Records}} template on the Wikimedia Commons site, which mentions the Edison Records assets as being held by the National Park Service. In addition, the Survey of Reissues of U.S. Recordings report (August 2005) from the National Recording Preservation Board mentions the recordings from Thomas A. Edison's companies, and it is said that the U.S. government eventually received the legal title to the recordings.
Near the end of December 2007, the National Park Service (which is in charge of the Edison National Historic Site) was contacted regarding the copyright status of the Edison Records sound recordings. According to the museum curator Jerry Fabris, the simple answer is that the copyright status of the recordings is unclear. In particular, the donation of the copyrights to the American people by Edison is unfortunately "most likely a myth, unsubstantiated by any official documentation", though the belief of such a donation often comes up. In the curator's view, the Edison Records recordings could be "orphaned works" with regard to copyrights. On the audio duplication policy page for the Edison National Historic Site, it is stated that "The National Park Service does not presume that all Edison recordings are in the public domain." In any case, the Edison National Historic Site offers no-cost digital downloads of certain Edison recordings, as well as a list of Web sites for finding historical recordings. - Elegie ( talk) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Whether there is a required style for reused PD text is being asked at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Style guideline for PD sourced content. -- SEWilco ( talk) 20:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I searched high and low for a public domain search engine, and couldn't find a half-decent one, so I've created one: Appropedia:Appropedia's Public Domain Search.
IMO this would be a very valuable addition to this page, but since it's my work, I'll let someone else add it.
Btw, it's a work in progress, returns mostly public domain content, and all help would be very much appreciated! So far it's just US federal govt content plus Project Gutenberg. -- Chriswaterguy talk 07:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Several people have told me that unpublished, anonymous works created prior to 1896 expired after 100 years, under the rules in effect before 1996. I don't have copies of the 1978 and 1989 copyright laws to confirm or deny this. This is relevant to the newly published July 1888 Helen Keller photograph. Can anyone provide citations to prove this one way or the other? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 21:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
In light of the above discussion, I recommend the following changes or any other wording that would convey the same information:
Please comment for style and appropriateness and make any corrections. If there is a clear, off-wiki, electronic copy of the copyright act as it existed immediately prior to 1998, that would make a good reference. The only references I've seen were of current versions with footnotes saying what had changed. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it mandatory or acceptable to require that public domain text be in a quotation style? Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC mandatory quotation of public domain text. -- SEWilco ( talk) 03:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Can someone confirm to an editor that "the custom is that we attribute public domain text but it then can be edited. We don't freeze text in quotations." at Talk:Bathhouse Row#Restoration of quoting to credit Harrison ? He seems to think I'm using the royal "we". -- SEWilco ( talk) 02:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
<Without commenting on the particular case above> I've been here since year one. It has been common practice to start an article with PD text but dumping PD text with no or little editing has been frowned upon since PD text is often not written in an encyclopedic/neutral tone, is too dense/detailed, wrong, incomplete or otherwise needs to be edited and improved (See WP:NOT 2.4 #3).
When a good PD source is available for a topic I wish to write about, I'll copyedit/refactor/summarize/wikify that as appropriate and then further improve the text by introducing original prose based on non-PD references (see Yosemite National Park and 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens for examples). Of course, proper use of inline cites is needed throughout. Here is the key: The resulting text should be significantly better/more informative as an encyclopedia article than the original PD text alone.
It would be a great disservice to the project if we had to put all blocks of PD text in quotes since we couldn't improve on that text. Providing a link to the website the PD text is hosted on would almost be better. -- mav ( talk) 04:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Re:
FWIW, apparently this works differently in Australia - lists of info such as a phone directory would be ineligible (no creative content) in the US, but are covered by copyright in Australia. (From convo with an academic - sorry, have no ref.) -- Chriswaterguy talk 10:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Image:Olympic Rings.svg claims the flag to be protected by copyright. How is that possible, given that the creator of the flag died more than 70 years ago? ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 17:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC))
I just wanted to confirm that the community at large considers handwritten signatures, being nothing more than a name in a particular stylized font or calligraphy, ineligible for copyright. Right? Postdlf ( talk) 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
In reference to the Fonts section, is it grammatically correct to use as such so prolifically in the quote and then again in the content? It would appear that the phrase is used in this instance as a redundant term that does not add to the expression or definition. Does anyone have an objection to modification here? - Cheers Mark Vincent Andmark ( talk) 02:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Would it be feasible to create public domain templates or, since there have been changes in copyright laws and this would cause many templates to be created, could a section be added to infoboxes for book, film, etc? I know if I try to add it in, Wikipedia would get mad at me and the infobox would come out deformed and already does if I mess up even the tiniest detail, i.e. 1972 entered as 19772. I don't know why, it just does. - Darthjarek ( talk) 07:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
My recent requests for sources clarifying some of the claims made in that section have been left unanswered so far. Unless outside sources, either in English or in German, are provided for what's being asserted throughout that section I will request that the corresponding WP:PD paragraphs be removed of rephrased. There's no such thing as a copyright owner to a WWII mugshot. Please stop speculating. -- Poeticbent talk 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The spirit of the European Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works defines what the copyright protection implies. Quote from European Community (EC): Copyright (Harmonization Duration of Protection), Council Directive, 29/10/1993, No. 93/98 [4]:
There's nothing in the Directive suggesting that concentration camp photos are in any way the author's own intellectual creation requiring copyright protection. This is not an exception, but an actual rule. -- Poeticbent talk 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I requested a proof governing "all" World-War-II-era images and a clarification of "© USHMM" question in actual detail. I asked why the wartime German images "cannot be tagged as being in the public domain". A dead link was fixed for which I'm grateful, [5] (showing the case of a German applicant who made a photo of an emerging submarine in 1941, which does not cover for example concentration camp mugshots and the like) nevertheless the question of concrete proof of what is being claimed at WP:PD remains. The statement: "wartime German images cannot be tagged as being in the public domain" is false when reffering to photographic work which is NOT the author's "own intelectual creation reflecting his personality" [6]. Berne Convention clearly states what is and is not an original creation. I'm afraid the only way to show how misinformed and misleading is that entire section is to go ahead and rework it according to sources. For your information, here's the removed image discussion based on a faulty WP:PD premise at Wikipedia talk:Did you know? -- Poeticbent talk 20:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm just asking, I want to use a picture from a book. Since the author took the pictures before 1923, are they public domain or are they covered by the book's copyright? The book takes photos from the Public Archives of Canada. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 23:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I'm hoping to add some more photos to the World Trade Organization articles and was hoping to use some WTO photos. I came across this discussion from a few years ago but I don't believe they reached an conclusion on whether we can upload these photos to here or to commons. Any thoughts? Thanks so much -- Patrick ( talk) 01:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the section "Companies House - When downloading accounts for a Company listed, they are free of copyright and may be posted on any website. The are public record and statutory. The situation is the same for birth and death certificates. There is no copyright for this type of public record. Please see www.companieshouse.gov.uk." has trouble. I really don't understand what it means, and when it applies. Besides, it has typo error. Vinhtantran ( talk) 04:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Material added recently relating to listings of images in WP:PUI is missing verifiable reliable source citations and contains a preponderance of embedded external links to dubious sources that need to be checked for reliability. See the editorial interpolation at start of section just templated; the material added seems related to an editing war over images whose licensing and copyright status in Wikipedia has been unresolved and are still templated as under consideration for deletion. Wikipedia cannot cite itself for reasons that are made clear by the missing citations in this section. It would not be a reliable source citation. This section needs editing in conformance with Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles; it needs "full citations" in proper citation format, preferably with citation templates that would match the prevailing citation format throughout the article that existed prior to the additions. For contexts re: the disputes regarding images, please see: Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg and Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg and the review discussions in the templates on the images. To be useful for understanding the status of these images in Wikipedia, one needs a section here that follows Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:V#Sources, WP:CITE, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I am sorry to have to be the one to point these problems out, as I have been one to question the licensing of those particular images uploaded to Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons. But it is necessary to do so. I found this section via a search for "images of Nazi regime U.S. copyright law" that led to a Wapedia/Wikipedia link. There is now a Wikipedia "feedback loop" directing to unsourced material in Wikipedia that is being spread throughout the internet. This section needs re-writing with verifiable reliable sources following prevailing citation format prior to its recent additions. -- NYScholar ( talk) 17:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't really buy that Polish stuff either and I'm glad we agree on keeping it out until a better-written and better-sourced version arrives. On the other hand I felt you went completely over board in asking for citations. I don't think sentences like "The issue of German photographs from World War II has created some confusion" need explicit citations - it's pretty clear that there's a lot of confusion about this. Nor do I think a reasonable question like "What about images seized by Nazi Germany?" needs a citation. I also feel that you're treating this policy page too much like an article in mainspace. Haukur ( talk) 21:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
In response to the questions posed above by AdjustShift, which I just noticed, please see: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines; the individual sections in that page address these and related questions; e.g., Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Policy-related pages, which has a sub-section pertaining to both "Policy and guideline pages". See also the reference to the " five pillars" of Wikipedia editing as that page seems to suggest that they pertain to editing these kinds of "project pages" in Wikipedia. [They refers back to "Policies" in that reference; it still seems rather ambiguous whether or not and to what degree the linkage to WP:5P pertains or may pertain also to "guidelines"; perhaps the "policy" regarding editing guidelines (project pages about content guidelines) could be more clearly stated?*] That is one context for my previous comments about this project page and the "content guideline" contained therein. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Are architectural drawings (layout of rooms) subject to "freedom of panorama"? Can I freely use such a drawing, or create my own version of it? I am asking on the basis of Singaporean Law, which permits "freedom of panorama" (but I am unsure on the exact details).
Ref: per Section 64 of the Copyright Act (Chapter 63) of Singapore Law, The copyright in a building or a model of a building is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the building or model or by the inclusion of the building or model in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast. (Aust. 1968, s. 66) [9]
I came upon the public domain here through a course that raved Wikipedia as having public access to free images that can be uploaded for website design etc. How does one search for images and for starters where do I access the public domain? Is it within Wkipedia? or a seperate portal?
Also, if this is a public domain talk page...Why is this called a comment page? Maybe I don't belong here? Joannerees ( talk) 05:51, 25 October 2008 (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 2005 | Archive 2006 | Archive 2007 | Archive 2008 |
To some, the presumption seems to be that the Edison Records recordings are out of copyright, or that copyright effectively does not apply in the case of the Edison Records recordings. In particular, there is the {{PD-Edison_Records}} template on the Wikimedia Commons site, which mentions the Edison Records assets as being held by the National Park Service. In addition, the Survey of Reissues of U.S. Recordings report (August 2005) from the National Recording Preservation Board mentions the recordings from Thomas A. Edison's companies, and it is said that the U.S. government eventually received the legal title to the recordings.
Near the end of December 2007, the National Park Service (which is in charge of the Edison National Historic Site) was contacted regarding the copyright status of the Edison Records sound recordings. According to the museum curator Jerry Fabris, the simple answer is that the copyright status of the recordings is unclear. In particular, the donation of the copyrights to the American people by Edison is unfortunately "most likely a myth, unsubstantiated by any official documentation", though the belief of such a donation often comes up. In the curator's view, the Edison Records recordings could be "orphaned works" with regard to copyrights. On the audio duplication policy page for the Edison National Historic Site, it is stated that "The National Park Service does not presume that all Edison recordings are in the public domain." In any case, the Edison National Historic Site offers no-cost digital downloads of certain Edison recordings, as well as a list of Web sites for finding historical recordings. - Elegie ( talk) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Whether there is a required style for reused PD text is being asked at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Style guideline for PD sourced content. -- SEWilco ( talk) 20:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I searched high and low for a public domain search engine, and couldn't find a half-decent one, so I've created one: Appropedia:Appropedia's Public Domain Search.
IMO this would be a very valuable addition to this page, but since it's my work, I'll let someone else add it.
Btw, it's a work in progress, returns mostly public domain content, and all help would be very much appreciated! So far it's just US federal govt content plus Project Gutenberg. -- Chriswaterguy talk 07:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Several people have told me that unpublished, anonymous works created prior to 1896 expired after 100 years, under the rules in effect before 1996. I don't have copies of the 1978 and 1989 copyright laws to confirm or deny this. This is relevant to the newly published July 1888 Helen Keller photograph. Can anyone provide citations to prove this one way or the other? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 21:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
In light of the above discussion, I recommend the following changes or any other wording that would convey the same information:
Please comment for style and appropriateness and make any corrections. If there is a clear, off-wiki, electronic copy of the copyright act as it existed immediately prior to 1998, that would make a good reference. The only references I've seen were of current versions with footnotes saying what had changed. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it mandatory or acceptable to require that public domain text be in a quotation style? Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC mandatory quotation of public domain text. -- SEWilco ( talk) 03:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Can someone confirm to an editor that "the custom is that we attribute public domain text but it then can be edited. We don't freeze text in quotations." at Talk:Bathhouse Row#Restoration of quoting to credit Harrison ? He seems to think I'm using the royal "we". -- SEWilco ( talk) 02:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
<Without commenting on the particular case above> I've been here since year one. It has been common practice to start an article with PD text but dumping PD text with no or little editing has been frowned upon since PD text is often not written in an encyclopedic/neutral tone, is too dense/detailed, wrong, incomplete or otherwise needs to be edited and improved (See WP:NOT 2.4 #3).
When a good PD source is available for a topic I wish to write about, I'll copyedit/refactor/summarize/wikify that as appropriate and then further improve the text by introducing original prose based on non-PD references (see Yosemite National Park and 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens for examples). Of course, proper use of inline cites is needed throughout. Here is the key: The resulting text should be significantly better/more informative as an encyclopedia article than the original PD text alone.
It would be a great disservice to the project if we had to put all blocks of PD text in quotes since we couldn't improve on that text. Providing a link to the website the PD text is hosted on would almost be better. -- mav ( talk) 04:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Re:
FWIW, apparently this works differently in Australia - lists of info such as a phone directory would be ineligible (no creative content) in the US, but are covered by copyright in Australia. (From convo with an academic - sorry, have no ref.) -- Chriswaterguy talk 10:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Image:Olympic Rings.svg claims the flag to be protected by copyright. How is that possible, given that the creator of the flag died more than 70 years ago? ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 17:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC))
I just wanted to confirm that the community at large considers handwritten signatures, being nothing more than a name in a particular stylized font or calligraphy, ineligible for copyright. Right? Postdlf ( talk) 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
In reference to the Fonts section, is it grammatically correct to use as such so prolifically in the quote and then again in the content? It would appear that the phrase is used in this instance as a redundant term that does not add to the expression or definition. Does anyone have an objection to modification here? - Cheers Mark Vincent Andmark ( talk) 02:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Would it be feasible to create public domain templates or, since there have been changes in copyright laws and this would cause many templates to be created, could a section be added to infoboxes for book, film, etc? I know if I try to add it in, Wikipedia would get mad at me and the infobox would come out deformed and already does if I mess up even the tiniest detail, i.e. 1972 entered as 19772. I don't know why, it just does. - Darthjarek ( talk) 07:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
My recent requests for sources clarifying some of the claims made in that section have been left unanswered so far. Unless outside sources, either in English or in German, are provided for what's being asserted throughout that section I will request that the corresponding WP:PD paragraphs be removed of rephrased. There's no such thing as a copyright owner to a WWII mugshot. Please stop speculating. -- Poeticbent talk 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The spirit of the European Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works defines what the copyright protection implies. Quote from European Community (EC): Copyright (Harmonization Duration of Protection), Council Directive, 29/10/1993, No. 93/98 [4]:
There's nothing in the Directive suggesting that concentration camp photos are in any way the author's own intellectual creation requiring copyright protection. This is not an exception, but an actual rule. -- Poeticbent talk 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I requested a proof governing "all" World-War-II-era images and a clarification of "© USHMM" question in actual detail. I asked why the wartime German images "cannot be tagged as being in the public domain". A dead link was fixed for which I'm grateful, [5] (showing the case of a German applicant who made a photo of an emerging submarine in 1941, which does not cover for example concentration camp mugshots and the like) nevertheless the question of concrete proof of what is being claimed at WP:PD remains. The statement: "wartime German images cannot be tagged as being in the public domain" is false when reffering to photographic work which is NOT the author's "own intelectual creation reflecting his personality" [6]. Berne Convention clearly states what is and is not an original creation. I'm afraid the only way to show how misinformed and misleading is that entire section is to go ahead and rework it according to sources. For your information, here's the removed image discussion based on a faulty WP:PD premise at Wikipedia talk:Did you know? -- Poeticbent talk 20:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm just asking, I want to use a picture from a book. Since the author took the pictures before 1923, are they public domain or are they covered by the book's copyright? The book takes photos from the Public Archives of Canada. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 23:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I'm hoping to add some more photos to the World Trade Organization articles and was hoping to use some WTO photos. I came across this discussion from a few years ago but I don't believe they reached an conclusion on whether we can upload these photos to here or to commons. Any thoughts? Thanks so much -- Patrick ( talk) 01:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the section "Companies House - When downloading accounts for a Company listed, they are free of copyright and may be posted on any website. The are public record and statutory. The situation is the same for birth and death certificates. There is no copyright for this type of public record. Please see www.companieshouse.gov.uk." has trouble. I really don't understand what it means, and when it applies. Besides, it has typo error. Vinhtantran ( talk) 04:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Material added recently relating to listings of images in WP:PUI is missing verifiable reliable source citations and contains a preponderance of embedded external links to dubious sources that need to be checked for reliability. See the editorial interpolation at start of section just templated; the material added seems related to an editing war over images whose licensing and copyright status in Wikipedia has been unresolved and are still templated as under consideration for deletion. Wikipedia cannot cite itself for reasons that are made clear by the missing citations in this section. It would not be a reliable source citation. This section needs editing in conformance with Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles; it needs "full citations" in proper citation format, preferably with citation templates that would match the prevailing citation format throughout the article that existed prior to the additions. For contexts re: the disputes regarding images, please see: Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg and Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg and the review discussions in the templates on the images. To be useful for understanding the status of these images in Wikipedia, one needs a section here that follows Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:V#Sources, WP:CITE, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I am sorry to have to be the one to point these problems out, as I have been one to question the licensing of those particular images uploaded to Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons. But it is necessary to do so. I found this section via a search for "images of Nazi regime U.S. copyright law" that led to a Wapedia/Wikipedia link. There is now a Wikipedia "feedback loop" directing to unsourced material in Wikipedia that is being spread throughout the internet. This section needs re-writing with verifiable reliable sources following prevailing citation format prior to its recent additions. -- NYScholar ( talk) 17:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't really buy that Polish stuff either and I'm glad we agree on keeping it out until a better-written and better-sourced version arrives. On the other hand I felt you went completely over board in asking for citations. I don't think sentences like "The issue of German photographs from World War II has created some confusion" need explicit citations - it's pretty clear that there's a lot of confusion about this. Nor do I think a reasonable question like "What about images seized by Nazi Germany?" needs a citation. I also feel that you're treating this policy page too much like an article in mainspace. Haukur ( talk) 21:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
In response to the questions posed above by AdjustShift, which I just noticed, please see: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines; the individual sections in that page address these and related questions; e.g., Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Policy-related pages, which has a sub-section pertaining to both "Policy and guideline pages". See also the reference to the " five pillars" of Wikipedia editing as that page seems to suggest that they pertain to editing these kinds of "project pages" in Wikipedia. [They refers back to "Policies" in that reference; it still seems rather ambiguous whether or not and to what degree the linkage to WP:5P pertains or may pertain also to "guidelines"; perhaps the "policy" regarding editing guidelines (project pages about content guidelines) could be more clearly stated?*] That is one context for my previous comments about this project page and the "content guideline" contained therein. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Are architectural drawings (layout of rooms) subject to "freedom of panorama"? Can I freely use such a drawing, or create my own version of it? I am asking on the basis of Singaporean Law, which permits "freedom of panorama" (but I am unsure on the exact details).
Ref: per Section 64 of the Copyright Act (Chapter 63) of Singapore Law, The copyright in a building or a model of a building is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the building or model or by the inclusion of the building or model in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast. (Aust. 1968, s. 66) [9]
I came upon the public domain here through a course that raved Wikipedia as having public access to free images that can be uploaded for website design etc. How does one search for images and for starters where do I access the public domain? Is it within Wkipedia? or a seperate portal?
Also, if this is a public domain talk page...Why is this called a comment page? Maybe I don't belong here? Joannerees ( talk) 05:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)