![]() | 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 2010 | Archive 2011 | Archive 2012 |
Is it OK to tag File:Grampian Map Brodie Castle.png as "This image of simple geometry is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain"? Bulwersator ( talk) 16:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Now that it's 2012, should the mentioned date of January 1, 1923 be updated to January 1, 1924? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 01:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
As a frequent contributor to Writing Systems I was wondering if we could port this public domain template from commons. Is there a reason why a public domain category would not be portable? Van Isaac WS contribs 05:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Here are some points on which the article may require revision. I'm no legal expert, so I haven't made any edits to the article myself. But I have provided sources for anyone who may choose to investigate further and make the appropriate edits if warranted.
-- Mike Agricola ( talk) 22:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
For TV shows, it might be useful to have a section (near the "Movies" section) or a subsection (under the "Unpublished works" section.) Proposed initial content for a "TV shows" section is given as follows (see the markup for details on references):
Many TV shows may in fact be unpublished works for the purpose of copyright because wireless broadcast does not constitute publication. In addition, it is not clear as to whether syndication of a TV show constitutes publication for the purpose of copyright [1]. Two rulings from US federal trial courts (Paramount Pictures Corp. v Rubinowitz, 217 U.S.P.Q. 48 (E.D. N.Y., 1981) and NBC v Sonneoborn, 630 F.Supp 524 (D. Conn, 1985)) held that syndication of TV shows under restrictive agreements did not constitute publication, though it is not clear as to whether other courts would come to the same decision [1].
(For movies, public showings in theaters do not constitute publication. At the same time, the process of disseminating a movie involves (or used to involve) a distributor placing copies of the movie in its branch offices (which were sometimes called "exchanges" or "regional exchanges") from where they would be rented to exhibitors [2]. According to Stephen Fishman, the legal consensus is that a movie is published for the purpose of copyright once the distributor has made copies available in its exchanges [2]. In particular, there is the court case American Vitagraph, Inc. v Levy, 659 F.2d 1023 (9th Cir. 1981.) As such, a film that has been shown to the public in movie theaters can be treated as being published.)
-- Elegie ( talk) 02:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Under the "USA" subsection of the "Sound recordings" section, it might be useful to have a subsection for the issue of the recordings from Edison Records. Possible text for the new subsection is given below:
From the late 1890s through 1929, Thomas Edison and a number of companies associated with Edison produced many sound recordings [3]. In the mid-1950s, the US National Park Service acquired the assets of the McGraw-Edison Company, including many phonograph records, and in 2001 the NPS received a donation of 9,800 phonograph record metal molds from the Henry Ford Museum [4]. According to Peter Hirtle, the Edison recordings are most likely copyrighted and it is not clear as to who holds the copyrights on the recordings [5]. Various Edison recordings have been made available for downloading at the Thomas Edison National Historic Park and the US Library of Congress, among other places. In addition, Wikimedia Commons features a number of Edison Records recordings. Hirtle even mentioned a case where a number of 1890s recordings were commercially released on audio CD and seemed to be of the view that the copyright status of old wax cylinder recordings should not preclude digitizing the recordings for the purpose of disseminating material that is of cultural importance [5].
-- Elegie ( talk) 23:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment: IMHO, it would be better to focus on the copyright law itself than discuss at length an application of that law to a particular example. However, I do think that this section in the article should state that state copyright laws governing pre-1972 sound recordings do not have an expiry date. Effectively they grant perpetual copyright (until 2067 when federal law supersedes all state law in this matter):
"Prior to the 1976 Copyright Act, pre-1972 sound recordings enjoyed a truly perpetual copyright term. No state that we know of had enacted any limitation on the copyright term of sound recordings." Reference: Harbeson, Eric (31 January 2011). "Comments submitted on behalf of The Music Library Association (MLA)" (PDF). U.S. Copyright Office. Retrieved 3 September 2012.
If the article makes clear that state law as a general rule grants perpetual copyright in pre-1972 sound recordings, then it's a simple logical deduction for the reader to conclude that old Edison recordings (along with other old sound recordings) are "most likely copyrighted". -- Mike Agricola ( talk) 15:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I ran across an article where large chunks were copy-pasted unattributed from [4]. Bibliographic information is: James Heitzman and Robert L. Worden, editors. India: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1995. The publication does not appear to contain any information about copyright. The WP:PD page indicates that most though not all government publications are not subject to copyright. Can I get an opinion about this source? Thank you. JanetteDoe ( talk) 17:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
NASA pix are PD, ESA ones are not (I think). What about Chinese? I'm thinking of this. [5] Could upload under fair use if not, but PD would be easier. — kwami ( talk) 23:21, 21 December 2012 (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 2010 | Archive 2011 | Archive 2012 |
Is it OK to tag File:Grampian Map Brodie Castle.png as "This image of simple geometry is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain"? Bulwersator ( talk) 16:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Now that it's 2012, should the mentioned date of January 1, 1923 be updated to January 1, 1924? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 01:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
As a frequent contributor to Writing Systems I was wondering if we could port this public domain template from commons. Is there a reason why a public domain category would not be portable? Van Isaac WS contribs 05:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Here are some points on which the article may require revision. I'm no legal expert, so I haven't made any edits to the article myself. But I have provided sources for anyone who may choose to investigate further and make the appropriate edits if warranted.
-- Mike Agricola ( talk) 22:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
For TV shows, it might be useful to have a section (near the "Movies" section) or a subsection (under the "Unpublished works" section.) Proposed initial content for a "TV shows" section is given as follows (see the markup for details on references):
Many TV shows may in fact be unpublished works for the purpose of copyright because wireless broadcast does not constitute publication. In addition, it is not clear as to whether syndication of a TV show constitutes publication for the purpose of copyright [1]. Two rulings from US federal trial courts (Paramount Pictures Corp. v Rubinowitz, 217 U.S.P.Q. 48 (E.D. N.Y., 1981) and NBC v Sonneoborn, 630 F.Supp 524 (D. Conn, 1985)) held that syndication of TV shows under restrictive agreements did not constitute publication, though it is not clear as to whether other courts would come to the same decision [1].
(For movies, public showings in theaters do not constitute publication. At the same time, the process of disseminating a movie involves (or used to involve) a distributor placing copies of the movie in its branch offices (which were sometimes called "exchanges" or "regional exchanges") from where they would be rented to exhibitors [2]. According to Stephen Fishman, the legal consensus is that a movie is published for the purpose of copyright once the distributor has made copies available in its exchanges [2]. In particular, there is the court case American Vitagraph, Inc. v Levy, 659 F.2d 1023 (9th Cir. 1981.) As such, a film that has been shown to the public in movie theaters can be treated as being published.)
-- Elegie ( talk) 02:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Under the "USA" subsection of the "Sound recordings" section, it might be useful to have a subsection for the issue of the recordings from Edison Records. Possible text for the new subsection is given below:
From the late 1890s through 1929, Thomas Edison and a number of companies associated with Edison produced many sound recordings [3]. In the mid-1950s, the US National Park Service acquired the assets of the McGraw-Edison Company, including many phonograph records, and in 2001 the NPS received a donation of 9,800 phonograph record metal molds from the Henry Ford Museum [4]. According to Peter Hirtle, the Edison recordings are most likely copyrighted and it is not clear as to who holds the copyrights on the recordings [5]. Various Edison recordings have been made available for downloading at the Thomas Edison National Historic Park and the US Library of Congress, among other places. In addition, Wikimedia Commons features a number of Edison Records recordings. Hirtle even mentioned a case where a number of 1890s recordings were commercially released on audio CD and seemed to be of the view that the copyright status of old wax cylinder recordings should not preclude digitizing the recordings for the purpose of disseminating material that is of cultural importance [5].
-- Elegie ( talk) 23:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment: IMHO, it would be better to focus on the copyright law itself than discuss at length an application of that law to a particular example. However, I do think that this section in the article should state that state copyright laws governing pre-1972 sound recordings do not have an expiry date. Effectively they grant perpetual copyright (until 2067 when federal law supersedes all state law in this matter):
"Prior to the 1976 Copyright Act, pre-1972 sound recordings enjoyed a truly perpetual copyright term. No state that we know of had enacted any limitation on the copyright term of sound recordings." Reference: Harbeson, Eric (31 January 2011). "Comments submitted on behalf of The Music Library Association (MLA)" (PDF). U.S. Copyright Office. Retrieved 3 September 2012.
If the article makes clear that state law as a general rule grants perpetual copyright in pre-1972 sound recordings, then it's a simple logical deduction for the reader to conclude that old Edison recordings (along with other old sound recordings) are "most likely copyrighted". -- Mike Agricola ( talk) 15:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I ran across an article where large chunks were copy-pasted unattributed from [4]. Bibliographic information is: James Heitzman and Robert L. Worden, editors. India: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1995. The publication does not appear to contain any information about copyright. The WP:PD page indicates that most though not all government publications are not subject to copyright. Can I get an opinion about this source? Thank you. JanetteDoe ( talk) 17:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
NASA pix are PD, ESA ones are not (I think). What about Chinese? I'm thinking of this. [5] Could upload under fair use if not, but PD would be easier. — kwami ( talk) 23:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)