Wikipedia talk:Public domain/Archive 2012

Archive 2005

←

Archive 2010

Archive 2011

Archive 2012

Template:PD-shape

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)

I'd recommend asking at WP:MCQ. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

1923 vs. 1924

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)

No, it's still January 1, 1923. :) Due to evolution of copyright laws in the United States, works published between 1923 and before 1963 that had a copyright notice and where copyright was renewed are protected until 95 years after publication. A work from 1923 could be in copyright as long as until 2019, since works go into public domain on the first day of the year following expiration. See [1]. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons template:PD-Unicode

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? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 05:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Some potential areas for revision.

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.

• Since the article mentions the Twin Books ruling in a footnote with regards to works published prior to 1923, it might be worth mentioning that the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in 2008 based in part on Twin Books which determined that a set of French sculptures created in 1917 are still under copyright in the U.S. Because photographs of in-copyright works of visual art may infringe the underlying copyright on the artist's work, potentially this could impact those who upload or utilize photographs of foreign works of visual art assumed to be in the public domain by virtue of being created prior to 1923. Again, I'm no expert here, but it does seem to be an area of potential concern.

• Here's a second qualifier which I would recommend adding to the general statement "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world[1] is in the public domain": The first authorized publication of a work occurred prior to 1923.

It is possible (albeit unlikely) that a work was first published prior to 1923 without the consent of its author and subsequently republished in an authorized version in 1923 or later. For example, there is an ongoing controversy surrounding the copyright status of the song "Happy Birthday." The song was first published in 1912 in The Beginners’ Book of Songs but it has been argued that this publication was unauthorized and its first authorized publication took place in 1935 (a copyright which was properly registered and renewed and which is therefore still in effect). More info: "The myth of the pre-1923 public domain".

• A couple points about the paragraph describing Canadian law and photographs:

In Canada, any photograph created (not published!) before January 1, 1949 and not covered by Crown copyright is in the public domain. This is a consequence of the Canadian Bill C-32: An Act to Amend the Copyright Act, which replaced the old rule for photographs ("copyright expires 50 years after creation of the work") by 50 years p.m.a., but not retroactively applying the new rule to works that were already in the public domain by the effective date of the bill, January 1, 1999 (see [2] at the bottom).

(a) The link accompanying Bill C-32 no longer seems to point to its original target, but a Bill C-32 ("An Act to Amend the Copyright Act") was introduced in Parliament in 2010. Due to a federal election held in spring 2011, it never became law though. If this bill is meant in the quoted paragraph, it seems rather odd to connect it with an "effective date of the bill" eleven years prior (January 1, 1999). It seems that there is some sort of factual error here.

(b) The failed Bill C-32's successor, Bill C-11, did become law just a few weeks ago though. According to an official legislative summary of the bill, a clause concerning the term of copyright for photographs in an earlier version of the Canadian Copyright Act is repealed. The bill also contained a transitional clause to ensure that copyright that has expired in photographs is not revived by provisions in the bill.

(c) The link contained within "(see [3] at the bottom)" appears to be dead.

Given that the info in the article about Bill C-32 appears to contain inaccuracies, the assertion that "any photograph created (not published!) before January 1, 1949" should probably be checked too (and if accurate, a reference should be provided to support it).

• Regarding sound recordings in the UK, it may be worth mentioning in the article that a European Union directive recently extended the term of copyright protection from 50 to 70 years. EU member states were given two years from the directive's date of publication (30 September 2011) to amend their national copyright laws accordingly. I'm not certain if the UK has already implemented this directive or not, but it certainly will be in effect soon. (Reference 1, Reference 2)

--Mike Agricola (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed new section (or perhaps subsection): "TV shows"

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. 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.

(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. 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. 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)

Proposed new subsection under Sound recordings - USA: "Edison Records recordings"

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. 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. 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. 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.

-- Elegie (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Um. Doesn't this text effectively imply that the Edison recordings are not public domain and therefore definitely shouldn't be included? --BozMo talk 11:36, 3 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)

The state laws that I've seen say that the rightful owner of the masters holds the right to control reproduction. If the National Historical Park or the Library of Congress hold the masters, they have the right to reproduce these.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Do these laws permit redistribution of recordings reproduced from these masters? At any rate, if you can find some supporting sources, this may be a very useful point to bring up in the U.S. sound recordings section of the article. For example, a collector who has purchased the masters of pre-1972 sound recordings could reasonably turn to this article to see if they have the legal right to digitize their collection for the purpose of preservation and making it available to others interested in historical sound recordings. --Mike Agricola (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

copyright status of work produced by GPO

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)

The GPO is the United States Government Printing Office. The GPO and the United States Library of Congress are parts of the federal government. All works of the U.S. federal government qualify as {{PD-USGov}}. postdlf (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Chinese space agency

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)

Hi kwami. Here's a quick answer: The China National Space Administration is a branch of the Chinese government, so you will need to pick through the relevant Chinese copyright law to determine if the country attaches copyright to official state publications. That said, I should point out that this Talk page concerns improvements to the Wikipedia: Public domain article, not discussion about copyright in general. For questions about whether specific works are in the public domain, please visit Wikipedia: Media copyright questions. That would be the best place to direct further inquiries on the topic. --Mike Agricola (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)