Wikipedia talk:Public domain/Archive 2009

Archive 2005

←

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

Archive 2009

Continuing update

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)

No it should not be continually updated. The day will always remain January 1, and the year will remain fixed at 1923 until 2019, when it will switch to 1924. (Barring future changes to the U.S. copyright law, of course.) Lupo 15:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to explain the January 1 date: in the United States, copyrights always expire on December 31 of the year in which they expire, not on the anniversary date of the event (publication, creation, or author death, depending on certain details) that controls for expiration. See 17 U.S.C. § 305. TJRC (talk) (10:09, March 25, 2008)

What Lupo and TJRC said. Not until January 1, 2019, will all works published in 1923 enter the U.S. public domain. — Walloon (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

NEA works

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)

I stumbled over that, too. But in any case, don't assume everything on the NEA website was PD. See [1]. Lupo 05:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well clearly the content on the NEA site that is not NEA-created would not generally be PD; that’s no surprise. But what about the content that is NEA-created? —teb728 t c 09:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Works created by artists and organizations who receive NEA grants are not PD. General Terms and Conditions for Grants, p. 17:

You may arrange to copyright any materials you develop from the work undertaken during the period of support without prior approval from us. For procedural information, contact: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress, 101 Independence Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 20559-6000; 202/707-3000; www.copyright.gov.

Unless otherwise specified in the award, we are not entitled to receive royalties from work supported or made possible by a grant or cooperative agreement; however, we retain a royalty-free right to use such work for Federal government purposes (e.g., the use of final report work products to document the results of our award programs), including placement on our Web site.

Re work created by employees of the NEA, all indications are that employees of the NEA are federal employees. Almost all employees of "independent" federal agencies are still federal employees. — Walloon (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

New template

{{Possibly non-free in US}}

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)

That template's content is not correct; Free Content (e.g. in the GFDL sense) is not in the public domain; it it protected by copyleft, but it also does not require a fair use exception.--Elvey (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I resolved the issue I raised through editing of the template. The edits have stood.--Elvey (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem re Public court records. Gov't works.

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)

Of course it's not the full "public record". Presenting a photo of copyrighted work in a court case does not make that work lose its copyright, even though the photo enters the "public record". But court opinions are PD. See WP:PD#Public records. Don't know who added that mistaken bit. Lupo 09:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

OTOH, this motion from TSG doesn't seem to be copyright. TSG does not buy documents . So it seems that when it comes to Public court records, it's more than the gov't works (e.g. opinions) that are PD. Still wondering where the line is drawn. I did look at WP:PD#Public records and references 2,3, and 6.--Elvey (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think TSG gets to use it only because of 'fair use'; it's newsworthy.--Elvey (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record: this issue is now closed; I corrected the article a while ago, and the correction stands.--Elvey (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Works of the Florida gov't

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)

I'm fine with that change to my contribution. I made a follow-up change. Also, I just made this draft.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs) 15:30, February 12, 2009

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)

Fair, if not very complementary eval of my IP expertise; IANAL, but I'm learning. As I noted elsewhere, the FL supreme court received and denied a petition for review of the case. The appellate court opinion stated in no uncertain terms: "Florida's Constitution and its statutes do not permit public records to be copyrighted unless the legislature specifically states they can be." (Emphasis mine.) The FL court system has determined that its constitution says that the works cannot be copyrighted; the executive has no discretion. One can dislike or disagree with that decision, but I don't see how one can't argue it hasn't been made (though again, IANAL, and I have seen SCOTUS apparrently re-rule on what appeared to be settled precedent). In the case of both FL and the US, the respective legislature can amend the constitution to change the copyrightability of that government's works. The state of FL asserted in court that it could assert copyright, and the court told it that it could not. I think that when one talks about the actions of a state, the term is implicitly a reference to the executive branch (which includes agencies such as the attorney's office, but not the legislative or judicial branches.) Hence it's appropriate to say that the state cannot, as it is another way of saying that the executive branch cannot, no? Thanks again for the patience shown.--Elvey (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to keep going around on this, because it's as much Original Research on my part as it is on yours, but let me give some quick bullet points.

1. There is one case cited that discusses whether Florida can assert a copyright, and it is limited to GIS data, and covers no other works.
2. The statement that "In the case of both FL and the US, the respective legislature can amend the constitution to change the copyrightability of that government's works." is wrong on many levels. First, Florida's works are "copyrightable," period. Issues of copyright subject matter is federal law, and Florida has no say in it. In contrast, works of the federal government are not subject to copyright. The distinction here is that US government works are truly PD. Florida's public records are not PD; they are copyrighted (to the extent federal law allows), and only Florida's policy decision not to assert copyright prevents Florida from asserting copyright. That policy is in the statutes as interpreted by state judges, but it is Florida's own policy.
3. No one is talking about whether a limitation is on the executive branch, or, for that matter, on a completely different political subdivision (as in the Microdecisionscase, involving a county).
4. Slight digression: the decision of the Florida Supreme Court not to hear the case is pretty much irrelevant. First, a decision not to hear the case is not the same as hearing a case and affirming it. Second, I can't really tell from the decision on the petition, http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/disposition/2005/4/05-255.pdf, but it reads to me like the issue being put up for review was a matter of jurisdiction, not of the merits of the case.
5. Finally, and this is the big one for me, there are many exceptions to "general rule" that Florida cannot assert copyright in its public records, enough that it is very difficult to making a general statement on the copyright status of Florida's public records. It would be worthy of including if there was some good secondary sources that reviewed and interpreted the statutes in question, cataloging the exceptions. But as a general rule, it just doesn't cut it.

If you find a law review article or other work written by an attorney or law student who'd given it the appropriate level of research, I'll support including a summary of what that work shows. But I'm an attorney well-versed in IP law, and with just the little (admittedly original) research I've done, declaring a general rule of non-assertion of copyright by Florida is a gross oversimplification, too much so to provide the reasonable guidance that these Wikipedia space articles are supposed to be providing.

I do have to tell you, I admire the work you've put in here, but it just does not lend itself to the quick and easy answer you're trying to give it. When I wrote above characterizing you as "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 didn't mean for that to be "not very complimentary," and apologize that you took it that way. Really, your original research here is pretty good for someone not trained in law. But there are subtle intricacies, and there's a reason it takes three years of law school and a difficult multi-day bar exam to practice law. It's often not as simple as it looks. TJRC (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll defer to your expertise from law school & practice. (It still seems to me that the court ruling (per the quote in my last paragraph) is not narrow and invalidates your first and second points). I see that if you're right about point one, then you're right on point two. Some level of deference to experts is not wikipedia policy but I think it should be. Objections withdrawn. :) Thanks for the replies; I enjoyed the discussion.--Elvey (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I found further info, so let's revisit the issue. According to this document, in 1980 the Florida Supreme Court interpreted the definition of public record (as quoted above and in the license tag) to encompass all materials made or received by an agency in connection with official business which are used to perpetuate, communicate or formalize knowledge. The document is from 2005, implying that the Florida Supreme Court definition is still binding. Given that definition, it appears to fit most any work of the Florida government. The document also lists a number of agencies which have apparently been given explicit authorization to obtain and keep copyrights, but I don't see the state House of Representatives listed. (per Carl Lindberg talk, here.) I plan to edit accordingly.--Elvey (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In reply to the comment "Florida's public records are not PD; they are copyrighted (to the extent federal law allows)…" I would argue that Florida's Constitution, statutes, and court decisions disallowing the assertion of copyright is pretty clear evidence of Florida's intent of waiver and/or abandonment of its copyright claims over those materials covered, therefore putting them in the public domain. Int21h (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

PD-text and SVG fonts

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)

I put in my two cents over at Commons. TJRC (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Local governments use .gov domain names

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

 Done TJRC (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

where are the guidelines?

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:

• PD material which is reliable, encyclopedic, and is a secondary or tertiary source rather than a primary source is more welcome; PD material that is offensive, non-encyclopedic, primary source material is less welcome.
• There are at least two options for how PD material can be used in wikipedia:

1. It can be used like any copyrighted material, for which verbatim passages must be put into quotation marks or blockquotes, and footnoted. This provides clear attribution for both the source of content and ideas, and for specific wording.
2. It has often been pasted into new articles, to be mixed with new writing, and supported by use of a PD attribution template. This provides a lesser degree of attribution which some feel is adequate.

• The use of PD material mixed in with other writing is not supported in wikipedia's DYK processes. For DYK, eligibility of a new article requires 1500 words exclusive of blockquoted passages, and any PD verbatim text should be put into blockquotes if only to allow DYK administrators to perform the wordcounts.
• The use of PD material mixed in with other writing is less and less allowed (and perhaps now generally disallowed) in wikipedia's FA review processes.
• The experience of using PD material from various main sources including eb1911 and danfs should be compared. To compare two examples, DANFS material on ships is fairly encyclopedic, secondary, and reliable and I believe its use with just an attribution template is welcomed in new articles by wp:SHIPs; NRHP applications (some but not all of which are in the public domain) are more primary in nature and their use is not usually appreciated by wp:NRHP members such as myself, except where used just like other sources (with quotation marks or blockquotes for any verbatim passages).

I'm interested in editing some thoughts along these lines into the guideline page. doncram (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why someone has labelled WP:PD as a "content guideline". It never was, and it never aimed to be one. It is an attempt to explain what the "public domain" is. If you think a guideline about the subjects you mentioned above was necessary, write one up, maybe at Wikipedia:Guidelines about including public domain content. Lupo 22:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not studied the edit history of these articles, but I wonder then if this article's creation or main content, at wp:PD predates the regular wikipedia article at Public domain. That article defines what "public domain" is, too. Its Talk page, at Talk:public domain carries continuous discussion about the topic. Perhaps some or much of the contents of this current article in wikipedia space ought to be merged into that article. The current article is in fact labelled a "content guideline", and I do think that having a content guideline on use of PD in wikipedia is an appropriate use for the location wp:PD. Lupo, would you be willing to help merge material from here into the main wikipedia article at Public domain? doncram (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe some of these materials could also be mentioned in the article Public domain. Note, though, that WP:PD is written from a U.S. perspective, and lots of things are U.S.-specific. It is a page dedicated to Wikipedia authors, not a general article. It treats specific cases that do crop up often here when people upload images and in some cases gives concrete guidelines or recommendations whether something is PD or not. If you want to include some of this page's contents also at Public domain, go ahead, but don't remove it from here. This page is also linked to from other projects. And no, I don't have time to help improve the article Public domain.

I strongly object to replacing this page by a "what to include"-type guideline as you proposed above. If you want such a guideline, write it on a new page. Lupo 09:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to concede that there is a need met by having this "Wikipedia:Public domain" article contain more specific discussion of various public domain topics, more than is appropriate to have included in the mainspace article for general readers. This Wikipedia-space article is useful to serve wikipedia editors, a different purpose. There may be continuing duplication of some material, which is okay and good. To whatever extent material in this article is U.S. perspective, I think that should be labelled clearly in the article, by use of section titles, and sections should be opened up for other perspectives as well. I think that this article can include both guidance along the lines that I was suggesting, as well as specific, detailed information about U.S. and other copyright law. It just has to be organized properly to make clear what is what. I will proceed with some re-organizing and rewriting, towards this being more of a content guideline page as it is labelled to be, without removing included material. I'll start with some small changes, which can be discussed here on the Talk page one by one if necessary. doncram (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Are private letters copyright protected?

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)

Private correspondance is most definitely copyright, worldwide. If the author was a US citizen and resident, and the letter was written before January 1, 1978, special rules apply but it is still copyright. Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria specifically forbid the publication of such material on Wikipedia for the first time (#4), and for good reason given the complications in copyright law and simple ethics that the contrary would entail. Physchim62 (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

California state and local copyright after County of Santa Clara v. CFAC

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)

I think it says that most California public records, unless specifically exempted by state law, are PD. But we really need a list of what is and isn't exempted by state law before doing much with it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:51, 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)

Soundtrack from pre-1923 movies = PD in US

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)

It means that music from pre-1923 movies is legally part of the movie, which is now public domain. If it's part of a Hollywood movie, there should be no problem uploading it to Commons, but otherwise it can be uploaded to Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There are very few pre-1923 sound movies. Perhaps you are referring to music composed to accompany a silent movie? Such music would be in the U.S. public domain if it was published (not just performed) before 1923; or if it was a U.S. work published 1923–1963, but its copyright was not renewed for a second term; or if it was a U.S. work published 1923–1977 without a proper copyright notice. — Walloon (talk) 23:12, 4 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)

I suspect that the EU considers the soundtrack to be part of a movie, too. Also, the URAA only applies to works not still in copyright in the US, and the copyright renewal records contain a decent amount of European, even non-English, works. More complex, sound recordings in the US prior to 1976 weren't and aren't covered by federal copyright; they are covered by a host of state laws. That Wikipedia article, as terse on the subject as it is, covers about everything I know on the subject, unfortunately.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the operative date for federal copyright of sound recordings is February 15, 1972 (see Sec. 3 of the law). — Walloon (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Death certificate

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)

If you're assuming it's PD, it's because it's {{PD-ineligible}}. Otherwise, the State of California would own a copyright on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's great, many thanks. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-US unpublished works

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)

Peter Hirtle's site says this is probably only valid in 9th Circuit; does that apply to Wikipedia? --Tgr (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As an unpublished work, it was copyright in the US until 2002, at which point it falls under life+70 or 120 years, no matter where it was made or published, provided that's a country that signed international copyright conventions. Everyone ignores Twin Books v. Disney as stupid and wrong, and I see no reason for us to do otherwise.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

PD dates

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)

PD Status of Illinois

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)

A simple chart for Copyright duration

Could we insert this chart into the guideline? Any comments/critiques over this chart? Jappalang (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the third row (not including title) include never published works of American origin? Steve Smith (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As well, "greatest of the following" should probably read "latest of the following". Steve Smith (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot, my bad. Filled those in now. Check out the latest version. Jappalang (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, though I think you need to specify the never published works thing, since the table currently says that it applies only to works first published in the U.S. (which is of course inapplicable to works that have never been published at all). I'd favour including this in the article, though. Steve Smith (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am thinking that when someone plans to upload a never-before-published work, at that point of time, the work will be published (i.e. date of publishing = date of upload). Therefore, it sort of makes sense to me that any authorized uploads of unpublished works actually becomes a publishing (hence no "unpublished works"). It might still confuse people so I could make amendments later. The table could do with some more polishing, so it is still not a finished product. In the works is also a table for US copyright status of foreign works (those first published abroad). Jappalang (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Such a chart will be of great benefit, once it's perfected, but right now both the terminology and some of the descriptions are inaccurate. For instance, in a couple of cases, "registration" (or "reg") is given, when what is actually meant is "renewal". What distinguishes works first published between 1923 and 1963 is not just that they are public domain if they were originally published without copyright notice (just like works first published between 1964 and 1977), but that they are public domain even if they were originally published with copyright notice, but copyright was not renewed within 28 years. The chart needs some serious revision before we can include it in the guideline.

Thus, the uppermost left-hand box, for instance, should read something like:

• before 1923
• during 1923–63 no notice OR notice, but no renewal
• during 1964–77 no notice
• from Jan 1, 1978 to March 1, 1989 no notice AND no reg within 5 yrs

As for the initial point raised by Steve, the whole point of adding this is that it's a simple chart, so I would simply retitle it "Copyrights of published U.S. works".—DCGeist (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I have amended the chart accordingly (and hopefully improved its prose as well). Please take a look. Jappalang (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. Except: (1) "within" rather than "after" for 2d bullet point in uppermost left-hand box; (2) make it "w/o notice and w/o registration..." for 4th bullet point in uppermost left-hand box (I know that second "w/o" might seem redundant, but it's actually not self-evident to editors grappling with this for the first time).—DCGeist (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the second column expressed clearly for those inexperienced in this area? For instance, in the second right-hand box, under "Copyright status", they will read "95 years after pub". Are we sure it will be self-evident to them that this means "Becomes public domain 95 years after pub" or "Under copyright until 95 years after pub"?—DCGeist (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Just two minor comments:

1. Why are you doing this as an SVG and not as a wikitext table?
2. What does "95 years after pub" mean? After Abe Lincoln went to a pub? Spell it out, directly in the text, not in an easily overlooked unnecessary footnote: "publication".

Cheers, Lupo 22:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree this chart can be implemented in text form, but I did it with the following objectives in mind.

• Anyone can use the graphical chart (non-Wiki sites) without problem (i.e. not needing to bother with porting a wiki-scripted table into their site or document).
• On the project, it can also be easily used on different pages without having to fuss over how to script it in without breaking the format of the article (one can easily display it in discussions over the copyright of a US work).
• It is easier to monitor for any subtle vandalism (e.g. massive influx of edits to Wikipedia:Public domain, some of which are vandalism).

Regardless, once the chart has been finalized, it can be implemented in text form if desired. I have also updated the chart again to DCGeist and your comments. Please have a look. Jappalang (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I think I have just two remaining issues.

• "within 28 years after first publication" and the three instances of "within 5 years since first publication" should all be changed to "of first publication ("within" does not work grammatically with either "after" or "since" in this construction).
• As I view it (on Safari), the word "within" in the third and fourth left-hand boxes is crossing into the respective right-hand box. Is anyone else seeing this?—DCGeist (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, wording changed. The "misaligned text" is apparently an issue of the project's SVG-to-PNG rendering engine (see commons:Commons:Graphics village pump/September 2009#SVG font rendering and commons:Commons:Village pump/Archive/2009Aug#SVG to PNG conversion failures...). I believe I managed to get a work-around fix here... Check it out. Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. One more:

• Isn't the wording of the last line in the last left-hand box unnecessarily convoluted? Wouldn't it be clearer and more consistent simply to have it read "2003 and after" or "2003 to present"?—DCGeist (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I was trying to make it "eye-catching"; i.e. for those who think they have an unpublished image on hand (so that they will check for any pre-2003 publishing and such). I am welcome to any suggestion to make it more obvious and clear though. Jappalang (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the point of that, as the copyright duration for unpublished works is effectively the same: 70 years pma if author known; 120 years after creation if not.

A couple style points:

• Eliminate stray semicolon at end of third right-hand box.
• Replace colons after "known" and "authorship" in fourth right-hand box with dashes for consistency with identical expression in box above.—DCGeist (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, two most common foibles I have seen in arguments over copyrights are:

1. This photo was taken in 1908, so it is a pre-1923 work and qualifies for PD-US. [Creation does not equal publication.]
2. The author has died more than 70 years, this work must be in public domain. [Uploader fails to understand that the work if first published during 1923-2002 may still be copyrighted.]

Hence, I make it a point that my chart should clearly counter the two fallacies (the "eye-catching" intent was to instruct them to make sure the work was not published until after 2002) to prevent more misunderstandings. I have also corrected the typos you have pointed out. Jappalang (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood.

• One last (subtle) substantive question: In the final right-hand box, we have "if unknown or corporate authorship - 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation". Well...which? The earlier or later of those two possibilities? I assume it's the later. If that's right, simply change the first line of the box to read identically to that of the one above: "Copyrighted until the latest of:"—DCGeist (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Jappalang (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Congressional charter

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)

What's the background of this question? Can you give some more detail? Off-hand, I don't see anything in title 36 relating to copyright. So my two counter-questions: why? Why not? Lupo 07:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This turns out to be a timely question, as File:Eagle Scout medal 1911.png was just tagged as PD. The Boy Scouts of America was granted a congressional charter in 1916 that grants certain rights:

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]

The BSA has noted the charter during recent trademark disputes.[3] I would have to dig through the PDFs attached to the case to find the specific note. It is also interesting since the Wikipedia article Scouting is used as a source.

Similar rights to emblems and marks are also granted to the Girl Scouts of the USA, the FFA, the Civil Air Patrol, Little League Baseball, and others. The NCOA was granted the same protection as recently as 1998.[4] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that just a case for {{insignia}}? Lupo 15:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The logo is no longer in copyright - but may still be a trademark (or something with similar effect). This is the case for many logos or emblems - Peripitus (Talk) 20:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)