Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-01-08/Public Domain Day

Discuss this story

Thanks, Kosboot. The length of copyright terms goes well beyond any justifiable range that would protect creators and their direct heirs (or, in the case or companies, their investors). It is now protecting the monopoly of big media companies for an unreasonable length of time and, as you note, preventing new creativity. It would be nice if Congress would stand up to Disney and the other big media companies that have lobbied so hard to extend copyright term limits. -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'll echo those thanks. It's nice to see this spelled out. The copyright problems for modern works are complex and there have been many confused conversations on Wikimedia Commons regarding the 70-95 year gap between US law and the rest of the world, but when it comes to older works it just seems silly. The English Wikipedia has the "fair use" policy which allows hosting content not allowed in other jurisdictions, but this only helps countries that have a large English speaking population. So for example, an image of an 1637 book cannot be transferred to Commons, though its article on the English Wikipedia can include a picture:

Version suitable for other Wikipedias, because it was published in 1549 before being copyrighted
Version suitable under "fair use" on English Wikipedia

In other Wikipedia languages, only the left picture can be used. Jane (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is hosted in the USA. Why must it follow copyright laws of any other jurisdiction? We do not follow the more liberal copyright laws of Canada so why do we follow the more restrictive ones of Europe? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The allowability of the pictures of the 1637 book depends on local laws. In some jurisdictions, a direct copy with no creativity whatsoever in the copying process does not create copyright on the resulting image (Finland); in some jurisdictions, it does (France); in some again, it is left undetermined (Estonia). But if we're talking about the problems U.S. laws cause to the functioning of Commons, we might actually hold a pure hypothetical thought what might the situation look like if it was hosted in some jurisdiction that would be more free-minded towards copyright - or, indeed, outside any jurisdiction at all, like out on the ocean or on a satellite. Would it be more or less beneficial? It's an interesting question. You know, the servers aren't exactly immovable. --Ehitaja (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this regard, I think IMSLP has worked out things to the best advantage: They have multiple servers in different countries allowing them to host files that would be problematic for some countries. For example, I just uploaded works that were published before 1923 -- they're clearly PD in the US, but since the composer was born in Russia and died in 1966, he is not PD anywhere else in the world. Yet they still accept the works and allow downloading, presuming "good faith" for those downloading. -- kosboot (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really a good example because that's not a copyright or fair use issue. The 1637 book of common prayer is under copyright in the UK but it is in the public domain in the United States. It's just Commons' policy that prevents it hosting the image, as that project chooses to have restrictions above the minimum legal requirement. Every Wikipedia could legally host the picture locally as well, because they are hosted in the US by a US organisation on a US domain name regardless of language, unless their specific project's policy prevents them. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to feel about current United States copyright practices, but I am comforted to think that starting in 2019 and for every year after there will be material queued to enter public domain and be shared. Thanks so much for this article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any further term extensions will not be a walkover for the "content" industries (RIAA, MPAA etc.) as the Sonny Bono / "Mickey Mouse" act was in 1998 -- the general U.S. public is now much more aware of how such things impact them personally... AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Book of Common Prayer images above, it's worth noting that the publishing restriction comes from the law of the United Kingdom, not the law of the United States. That's not to defend U.S. law - it clearly is designed to bolster company profits, not to encourage creative artists or to benefit the general public - but it is worth noting that the law is, in some cases, even worse elsewhere in the world. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For example, many countries don't have the same concept of "fair use" that Wikipedia relies on. Additionally, new servers probably wouldn't solve the problem anyway. Wikimedia is still a US-based US-registered organisation and must follow US laws. The United States also pobably considers the .org domain to be in US cyberspace and subject to US law regardless of the physical location of the server; it does so with .com. (Public Interest Registry, who handle .org, are based in Virginia, just a few miles from Wikimedia's servers.) It would be very difficult to play games with copyright law like this, especially while being the fifth biggest website on the planet with all the attention that implies. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]