Wikipedia talk:Public domain/Archive 2013

Archive 2010

Archive 2011

Archive 2012

Archive 2013

Archive 2014

Archive 2015

→

Archive 2018

A "license" exception to pre-1978 publication without copyright notice?

For works published in the US between 1923 and 1977, the lack of a copyright notice can place the work in the public domain. There is a template {{PD-US-no notice}} which can be used for such works. At the same time, from what one can tell, there is an exception that may be problematic: if a work was published prior to 1978 under license from the copyright holder and a copyright notice was omitted in violation of the license, then the lack of a copyright notice does not remove the work from copyright. Stephen Fishman talks about this on page 368 of The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More (Nolo, 2012) and gives an example where a publisher who publishes an author's story in 1975, having received oral permission from the author, and who fails to include a copyright notice would likely be found to have violated an implied promise to avoid harming the author's copyright rights, meaning that the omission of the copyright notice would probably not remove the story from copyright. Though this might not be an issue for works that are not licensed (i.e. works published by the copyright holder themself), this aspect of copyright notice requirements might be worth considering when applying the {{PD-US-no notice}} template and assessing the copyright status of works. (From what Fishman says, assessing the copyright status of a work published before 1978 with regard to the lack of a copyright notice would mean determining if the publication of the work involved licensing and the details of any licensing, which might not be easy.) - Elegie (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Flickr "Public Domain" uploads

Wikipedia:FLICKR currently states that images that have "No known copyright restrictions" are "Public Domain", when this is not necessarily the case. A supporting license statement should be added as to why the image is actually out of copyright. Im not sure where I should bring this up, but I will also bring this up over at Wikipedia Commons. -- Nbound (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC) ALso bringing this up at the Village Pump. - Nbound (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

xawaadle ma hawiya mise daarood ?

waxaan dhihi lahaay dadka kumashquulsan xawaadle ma hawiyaa mise daarood horta maxaa idiiku jira oo Dan ah even haduu daarood yahay mise waxaad ka xuntihiin deganaanta uu deganyahay dhulka hawiye ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.16.213 (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Relevant policies

I recently removed a piped link from the phrase "relevant policies" to Wikipedia:Image use policy. Obviously, there are other implications to the sentence ("author or source of a work") that apply just the same to written content, painted content, smoke-signaled content, and photographic content. The source needs to be cited (usually in an unambiguous manner, indicating direct copying or paraphrasing): plagiarism, WP:PLAGIARISM, etc. Sławomir Biały (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Are works by the National Guard works of the U.S. federal government?

There are a lot of photos taken of the 2013 Colorado floods by the Colorado National Guard.[1],[2] State government works can be copyrighted. But as best as I can tell, the state national guard units are still considered within the structure of the U.S. Army, and so any photos taken by a National Guard soldier within the scope of his duties should be public domain per {{PD-USgov}}. Anyone have a more definitive answer on this? postdlf (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I see now that Commons at least has a standard PD template for National Guard works... postdlf (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)