![]() | 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 2007 | Archive 2008 | Archive 2009 |
The sentence "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world[1] is in the public domain." actually should be updated each day. For example, today (March 25th) it should read "In the U.S., any work published before March 25, 1923 anywhere in the world[1] is in the public domain." Tomorrow (March 26), it should read "In the U.S., any work published before March 26, 1923 anywhere in the world[1] is in the public domain." Does someone know of a code to add to the text to automatically update this date? GregManninLB ( talk) 15:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Are works of the US National Endowment for the Arts in the Public Domain? Inasmuch as it is an “independent agency of the federal government,” I would be inclined to say yes. But the NEA web site’s Copyright Status Notice contains strange wording. “The National Endowment for the Arts does not retain copyright on any Endowment-created material within the Web site, such as guidelines and grant listings. All such material may be used for educational and nonprofit purposes with proper attribution, such as "The National Endowment for the Arts is the original source of this information."” If the content were truly PD, they could not restrict use to “educational and nonprofit purposes” or require attribution. Perhaps the webmaster doesn’t know what he is saying, or perhaps the NEA’s independent status makes it different. — teb728 t c 00:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Made it to go inside PD templates in situations where it may not be automatically PD outside its source country. ViperSnake151 15:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The article currently states: "the public record of any court case [is] in the public domain" but that assertion is not supported by the provided reference. See this discussion. So, is the public record of any court case (e.g. a brief filed by non-government party) in the public domain? Editing or a citation is needed.-- Elvey ( talk) 04:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm moving and re-wording the assertion that works of the Florida gov't are not subject to copyright. The statute is limited to public records, not works of government, and does not mention copyright. The Microdecisions case cited, while discussing copyright, is likewise limited to to public records, not works of government and additionally notes that there are some public records subject to copyright. TJRC ( talk) 21:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion here. The situation in Florida is that Florida opts not to assert its copyrights in certain public records. The only reason it arguably "cannot" is based on Florida's own legislation. That legislation is Florida's mechanism for expressing its policy not to assert. However, there's not much to prevent Florida from changing its stance and asserting its copyrights. The Florida legislature is a part of Florida. To claim that the state cannot assert its copyrights because of its own action not to assert is misleading.
This is in contrast to the U.S. government, where U.S. government works are simply not subject to copyright protection; this is not a case where the U.S. is simply declining to assert its existing copyrights.
Furthermore, the Florida statutes have so many exceptions that even saying that the "general rule" is nonassertion is misleading. It's technically true, but anyone relying on that "general rule" is skating on thin ice.
I acknowledge there is one case, about GIS map data, that is being cited; and I have no problem with indicating that Florida courts have held that current Florida law precludes Florida from asserting copyright in that data. But a general discussion is really getting into Original Research territory; and from what I can tell, it's OR by an editor who means very well, but is not particularly educated in some of the sometimes very subtle intricacies of the legal system in general, and intellectual property law in particular.
I propose this section be stricken or limited to the GIS map data supported by the cited case. TJRC ( talk) 21:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. Sorry about that. -- Cadwaladr ( talk) 21:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The Template:PD-font says that it does not apply to SVG fonts. This has been questioned over at the commons. Since it seems like this could change policies here and there, I am soliciting for more opinions on this matter. Thanks!- Andrew c [talk] 22:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Some local governments use .gov domain names, such as www.phila.gov for Philadelphia, PA. Maybe the wording about state governments should mention local governments more explicitly, rather than relying on the mention further on in the sentence. Davidt8 ( talk) 01:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Davidt8
This wikipedia guideline page doesn't provide a lot in the way of guidelines for using PD content in articles, at least not some kinds of guidelines that I think would be helpful and natural to have here. That is, to give guidance about when adding PD material is likely to be helpful and appreciated, and when it will not be helpful or appreciated. The guideline as written seems to be more about defining PD, not about using material that is known to be PD.
I've just been participating in discussion at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism about this. wp:Plagiarism, a draft guideline, has been overly "welcoming" about PD material being added into wikipedia, in my view. It seems to me that this PD guideline page, here, should carry some of the burden of discussing types of PD material which are and are not likely to be welcome in various areas in wikipedia, and what are the options for how PD material can be used.
Some thots:
I'm interested in editing some thoughts along these lines into the guideline page. doncram ( talk) 05:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to insert the scanned image of a letter written to my subject in the 1970s and feel it is an item that cannot be copyrighted. What is the rule on letters, never published and provided by the subject person? I'm not having much success searching the tutorials. -- GreenEyedLad ( talk) 22:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
In light of County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition, can people start getting public domain material through the California Public Records Act? Can someone tell me if this case says what I think it says? Int21h ( talk) 22:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Also note that California Government Code §6252 defines "Public records" as "any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics". It also defines "Writing" as "any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored." Int21h ( talk) 23:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ states "Sound recordings are defined as 'works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken or other sounds, but not including the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work.'", with which our article agrees. Are we allowed to upload music from pre-1923 movies to Wikipedia (not Commons to avoid issues of country of origin)? Jappalang ( talk) 22:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
A better thing to note is that, in the European Union, copyright on sound recordings lasts 50 years from time of first publication. There is a proposal to up this to 70, which has not passed yet - but which doesn't matter, given we have to respect the Uruguay Roundtable Agreements. In short: Provided the underlying composition is PD, everything recorded in the EU before 1946 (due to the Uruguay Roundtable Agreements giving an American copyright to ones in copyright in 1996) is PD. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 02:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The state of California has released an image of Michael Jackson's death certificate, which I'd like to use in the article about his death. I'm assuming it's PD, but which tag should I use? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 12:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
What is the status of a non-US unpublished work (specifically an old photograph were first publication would be uploading it to Commons)? Does the standard rule (pma 70, if the author is unknown 120 from creation) still apply, even if it has been PD for decades in the country of origin? Which defintion of published applies, US or the country of origin? -- Tgr ( talk) 22:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
According to local laws (it is a Hungarian photograph made in 1924 and kept in a drawer ever since), whoever publishes the image gains the copyright (except for moral rights) for 25 years. What is the status in the US then? 1) still 120 from creation, copyright owner is the unknown author 2) protected for 95 years as it has just been published, copyright owner is the author 3) 25 year copyright of the re-publisher is acknowledged per Berne? -- Tgr ( talk) 22:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Page says If published between 1909 and 1922 (inclusive) in a language other than English, the Ninth Circuit has considered them as "unpublished works" according to Peter Hirtle and following the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case Twin Books v. Disney in 1996. After skimming the ruling, I don't see how that follows. The ruling says Under the 1909 Act, an unpublished work was protected by state common law copyright from the moment of its creation until it was either published or until it received protection under the federal copyright scheme. Later it says that work in question was totally unprotected under United States copyright law (between 1923-1926), thus the ruling does not consider the rules for unpublished works to apply; instead it seems to say such works do not get any protection at all (or at least did not in 1923). -- Tgr ( talk) 22:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've raised a question about the "1911" date for PD status in the United States at the copyrights policy talk page and would very much appreciate feedback there. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. A question has been raised about the PD status of public records in the State of Illinois. I'm duplicating notice here; I'm hoping to keep discussion primarily at WT:C. Evidently, "Information presented on the Secretary of State’s web site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credit is requested." It doesn't mention modification, and I'm not sure if this is specific enough to be considered a release into public domain. With respect to text, it seems that we could defensibly incorporate extensive quotations, but can we work it directly into text to be modified as we do with US government text? Again, please reply at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#PD Status of Illinois. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Could we insert this chart into the guideline? Any comments/critiques over this chart? Jappalang ( talk) 04:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Just two minor comments:
Cheers, Lupo 22:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
If an organization has a congressional charter under Title 36 of the United States Code, then would they have protections beyond copyright and trademark law? If such an organization published an emblem before 1923 would it truly be public domain in the US? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Sec. 30905. Exclusive right to emblems, badges, marks, and words
The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights. [2]
![]() | 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 2007 | Archive 2008 | Archive 2009 |
The sentence "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world[1] is in the public domain." actually should be updated each day. For example, today (March 25th) it should read "In the U.S., any work published before March 25, 1923 anywhere in the world[1] is in the public domain." Tomorrow (March 26), it should read "In the U.S., any work published before March 26, 1923 anywhere in the world[1] is in the public domain." Does someone know of a code to add to the text to automatically update this date? GregManninLB ( talk) 15:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Are works of the US National Endowment for the Arts in the Public Domain? Inasmuch as it is an “independent agency of the federal government,” I would be inclined to say yes. But the NEA web site’s Copyright Status Notice contains strange wording. “The National Endowment for the Arts does not retain copyright on any Endowment-created material within the Web site, such as guidelines and grant listings. All such material may be used for educational and nonprofit purposes with proper attribution, such as "The National Endowment for the Arts is the original source of this information."” If the content were truly PD, they could not restrict use to “educational and nonprofit purposes” or require attribution. Perhaps the webmaster doesn’t know what he is saying, or perhaps the NEA’s independent status makes it different. — teb728 t c 00:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Made it to go inside PD templates in situations where it may not be automatically PD outside its source country. ViperSnake151 15:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The article currently states: "the public record of any court case [is] in the public domain" but that assertion is not supported by the provided reference. See this discussion. So, is the public record of any court case (e.g. a brief filed by non-government party) in the public domain? Editing or a citation is needed.-- Elvey ( talk) 04:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm moving and re-wording the assertion that works of the Florida gov't are not subject to copyright. The statute is limited to public records, not works of government, and does not mention copyright. The Microdecisions case cited, while discussing copyright, is likewise limited to to public records, not works of government and additionally notes that there are some public records subject to copyright. TJRC ( talk) 21:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion here. The situation in Florida is that Florida opts not to assert its copyrights in certain public records. The only reason it arguably "cannot" is based on Florida's own legislation. That legislation is Florida's mechanism for expressing its policy not to assert. However, there's not much to prevent Florida from changing its stance and asserting its copyrights. The Florida legislature is a part of Florida. To claim that the state cannot assert its copyrights because of its own action not to assert is misleading.
This is in contrast to the U.S. government, where U.S. government works are simply not subject to copyright protection; this is not a case where the U.S. is simply declining to assert its existing copyrights.
Furthermore, the Florida statutes have so many exceptions that even saying that the "general rule" is nonassertion is misleading. It's technically true, but anyone relying on that "general rule" is skating on thin ice.
I acknowledge there is one case, about GIS map data, that is being cited; and I have no problem with indicating that Florida courts have held that current Florida law precludes Florida from asserting copyright in that data. But a general discussion is really getting into Original Research territory; and from what I can tell, it's OR by an editor who means very well, but is not particularly educated in some of the sometimes very subtle intricacies of the legal system in general, and intellectual property law in particular.
I propose this section be stricken or limited to the GIS map data supported by the cited case. TJRC ( talk) 21:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. Sorry about that. -- Cadwaladr ( talk) 21:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The Template:PD-font says that it does not apply to SVG fonts. This has been questioned over at the commons. Since it seems like this could change policies here and there, I am soliciting for more opinions on this matter. Thanks!- Andrew c [talk] 22:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Some local governments use .gov domain names, such as www.phila.gov for Philadelphia, PA. Maybe the wording about state governments should mention local governments more explicitly, rather than relying on the mention further on in the sentence. Davidt8 ( talk) 01:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Davidt8
This wikipedia guideline page doesn't provide a lot in the way of guidelines for using PD content in articles, at least not some kinds of guidelines that I think would be helpful and natural to have here. That is, to give guidance about when adding PD material is likely to be helpful and appreciated, and when it will not be helpful or appreciated. The guideline as written seems to be more about defining PD, not about using material that is known to be PD.
I've just been participating in discussion at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism about this. wp:Plagiarism, a draft guideline, has been overly "welcoming" about PD material being added into wikipedia, in my view. It seems to me that this PD guideline page, here, should carry some of the burden of discussing types of PD material which are and are not likely to be welcome in various areas in wikipedia, and what are the options for how PD material can be used.
Some thots:
I'm interested in editing some thoughts along these lines into the guideline page. doncram ( talk) 05:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to insert the scanned image of a letter written to my subject in the 1970s and feel it is an item that cannot be copyrighted. What is the rule on letters, never published and provided by the subject person? I'm not having much success searching the tutorials. -- GreenEyedLad ( talk) 22:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
In light of County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition, can people start getting public domain material through the California Public Records Act? Can someone tell me if this case says what I think it says? Int21h ( talk) 22:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Also note that California Government Code §6252 defines "Public records" as "any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics". It also defines "Writing" as "any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored." Int21h ( talk) 23:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ states "Sound recordings are defined as 'works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken or other sounds, but not including the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work.'", with which our article agrees. Are we allowed to upload music from pre-1923 movies to Wikipedia (not Commons to avoid issues of country of origin)? Jappalang ( talk) 22:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
A better thing to note is that, in the European Union, copyright on sound recordings lasts 50 years from time of first publication. There is a proposal to up this to 70, which has not passed yet - but which doesn't matter, given we have to respect the Uruguay Roundtable Agreements. In short: Provided the underlying composition is PD, everything recorded in the EU before 1946 (due to the Uruguay Roundtable Agreements giving an American copyright to ones in copyright in 1996) is PD. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 02:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The state of California has released an image of Michael Jackson's death certificate, which I'd like to use in the article about his death. I'm assuming it's PD, but which tag should I use? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 12:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
What is the status of a non-US unpublished work (specifically an old photograph were first publication would be uploading it to Commons)? Does the standard rule (pma 70, if the author is unknown 120 from creation) still apply, even if it has been PD for decades in the country of origin? Which defintion of published applies, US or the country of origin? -- Tgr ( talk) 22:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
According to local laws (it is a Hungarian photograph made in 1924 and kept in a drawer ever since), whoever publishes the image gains the copyright (except for moral rights) for 25 years. What is the status in the US then? 1) still 120 from creation, copyright owner is the unknown author 2) protected for 95 years as it has just been published, copyright owner is the author 3) 25 year copyright of the re-publisher is acknowledged per Berne? -- Tgr ( talk) 22:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Page says If published between 1909 and 1922 (inclusive) in a language other than English, the Ninth Circuit has considered them as "unpublished works" according to Peter Hirtle and following the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case Twin Books v. Disney in 1996. After skimming the ruling, I don't see how that follows. The ruling says Under the 1909 Act, an unpublished work was protected by state common law copyright from the moment of its creation until it was either published or until it received protection under the federal copyright scheme. Later it says that work in question was totally unprotected under United States copyright law (between 1923-1926), thus the ruling does not consider the rules for unpublished works to apply; instead it seems to say such works do not get any protection at all (or at least did not in 1923). -- Tgr ( talk) 22:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've raised a question about the "1911" date for PD status in the United States at the copyrights policy talk page and would very much appreciate feedback there. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. A question has been raised about the PD status of public records in the State of Illinois. I'm duplicating notice here; I'm hoping to keep discussion primarily at WT:C. Evidently, "Information presented on the Secretary of State’s web site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credit is requested." It doesn't mention modification, and I'm not sure if this is specific enough to be considered a release into public domain. With respect to text, it seems that we could defensibly incorporate extensive quotations, but can we work it directly into text to be modified as we do with US government text? Again, please reply at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#PD Status of Illinois. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Could we insert this chart into the guideline? Any comments/critiques over this chart? Jappalang ( talk) 04:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Just two minor comments:
Cheers, Lupo 22:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
If an organization has a congressional charter under Title 36 of the United States Code, then would they have protections beyond copyright and trademark law? If such an organization published an emblem before 1923 would it truly be public domain in the US? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Sec. 30905. Exclusive right to emblems, badges, marks, and words
The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights. [2]