Talk:Public domain/Archive 1

Question in re "aspirin"

In one section of the current version, it says that Germany gave up the trademark for such as "heroin" and "aspirin" at the end of World War I. Another section says that "aspirin" lost its trademark because it became a generic term. So, they cannot both be true. Which one is it? RayKiddy 01:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Going even further, can a country hold a trademark for something internationally? And what about inter-language? I mean, "aspirin" was probably not called like that in German. Those international issues aren't very clear to me.--Cawas 17:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite rationale

Rationale for the complete rewrite:

"The copyright or patent on the work has expired." The actual formula is max(1923, year of first publication + 96) in the U.S. and year of death + 71 in the E.U.

1. List items

I converted these to paragraphs because added detail made them too long for the purposes that * was designed to handle.

"The author or inventor explicitly disclaims any proprietary interest." Not necessarily. Some law experts believe that it's impossible for an author to put a copyrightable work into PD. (Anyone have a source for this?) Even then, it's still a really Bad Idea for an author to release a work into PD, as it fails to disclaim implied warranty and opens the author up to liability. Better to release it under a simple permissive license similar to the new BSD license.

--Damian Yerrick

I've added a note to the relevant section that modern copyright law generally doesn't provide any way to abandon copyright. I think references to this idea are based on the old US law. As for warranty, I don't see that it would make much difference: you could abandon copyright (if it was possible) and also place a disclaimer, which doesn't seem different to providing a permissive licence and placing a disclaimer. Goatherd 21:27, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Monopoly chant

As much as I happen to agree with the "monopoly" chant, repeating it over and over is clearly biased; I'm going to neutralize the wording a bit. --Lee Daniel Crocker

---

I didn't intend the word "monopoly" to show bias but used it merely to distinguish such artificial rights from birth rights. Calling such rights "intellectual property" sets up a false analogy with physical property that United States law (for example) does not recognize; it's a good thing you didn't bias it up the other way.

And the soft line breaks after sentences serve a purpose: they make the diffs much cleaner. --Damian Yerrick

Example other than Mark Twain

Can we have an example other than Mark Twain?: one story of his wasn't published in his lifetime, and finally appeared in 2001, so it's still in copyright. --Vicki Rosenzweig

Let's get Lessig on that one too. ^_^ J.D. Salinger set precedent that even letters are copyrighted, just by virtue of being written; he successfully prevented a biographer's publication of his letters by claiming copyright on them. Therefore it's established that the act of writing establishes copyright, not the act of publishing. the much miffed, Koyaanis Qatsi

That depends on when the writing occurred. The current USA model is that writing creates a copyright, but in the not-too-distant past it was the actual filing, which was typically done by a publisher. RossPatterson 21:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Translation and editing of old texts

What about Translation and Editing of old texts? Translations are obviously under copyright (for whatever time) and edited versions of texts (including Shakespeare, for instance) are copyright. For instance, a nasty old Shakespeare text from 1900 may be public domain, but the Riverside Shakespeare publishes an original editing, so you can't copy that one, presumably. --MichaelTinkler

The act of publishing the text establishes a copywrite on the material. This is frequently done by taking a publication that is not copywrited and printing it in a book. If I remember correctly, the publishing of the title of the book with the printing date is enough. Usually these editions will have a couple of word changes or mis-spellings somewhere within the text so that it becomes a unique version and they can tell when someone copies their version. The original version is still in public domain. However, how many people can get their hands on books 100 years or older?

Ps, I don't know of any prosecution were the word changes were used to prosecute.

No, the publishing of the text does not establish a copyright on the material. Corel v. Bainbridge and other cases make it very clear that there needs to be creative input, not just a copying of public domain material. The editing of the material--the choosing of modern spellings and sometimes modern words, the choosing of which reading to adopt--those are creative acts and can create a new copyright.

As for who can get their hands on books printed before 1923 (the line in the US), it strikes me as relatively easy, especially for something like Shakespeare. My city library has a decent collection of such books in the stacks, and Oklahoma State University has a huge collection of such books in the stacks. I suspect any library in a place more than 100 years old should have an ever better collection.--Prosfilaes 21:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Impossibility of recall

In the "1.3 Disclaimer of interest" section, I'd like to add something about the impossibility of "recall" after something has entered the p.d., but I'm not completely sure it's true. For example, a single Supreme Court decision in favour of M. Mouse entering the public domain is permanent, meaning that it cannot ever again become anyone's property; decisions going the other way can be regarded as temporary. Perhaps this aspect - if completely true - is important enough to warrant its own section, here, in Eldred v. Ashcroft, GPL, etc. -- Hotlorp

Impossibility of "recall" isn't true I think. Didn't Eldred v. Ashcroft involve public domain works that had reverted to copyright due to the extention of copyright term? Goatherd 21:29, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

PD a government creation?

I doubt that this concept was introduced by governments. What is the evidence for that claim? Michael Hardy 04:13 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Well, copyright itself was introduced by governments, so they've defined the playing field, so to speak. Pre-copyright, everything was in the public domain. Koyaanis Qatsi

This is not true, nor is this quote from the article:

Without some kind of grant of monopoly rights—so-called "intellectual property rights"—all works belong to the public domain. Thus a balance between individual incentive to create and free access for the public has to be struck.

The common law position is that all creative works are granted unlimited protection from copying. Copyright legislation was introduced to limit this protection rather than expand it. This common law position applies to the UK and many Commonwealth countries. I am not sure if US courts accept ancient UK decisions as precedent, but the two legal systems are closely related. The fact that for many years the US moved from this default position to one where no protection was afforded does not change the historical fact that the common law position is one of indefinite protection. For a more informed position on this, see Lessig's Free Culture. --GoldenRing 03:37, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Except when publishing was forbidden without a license for a particular book granted by the king. Michael Hardy 04:17 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Really, the claim is about history, and not only should historical evidence should not only be adduced, but the story should be told here, if (as I doubt) there is such a story. Legislatures introduced copyrights and limited their duration. Lawyers then invented language in which to talk about related matters, including the phrase "public domain". The claim here is that governments had in mind such things as common public land when they decided to limit the duration of copyrights. I don't believe it. Michael Hardy 04:21 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

---

---

The Public Domain Enhancement Act

So, one thing I don't see on this page is mention of The Public Domain Enhancement Act, AKA "The Eric Eldred Act", introduced by Zoe Lofgren in late June 2003. Is this valuable? -- ESP 14:52 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes. Add it if you want to, but please make sure it's clear it affects only the U.S.  :-) Koyaanis Qatsi

What can and can't be done with PD

There may be benefit in adding what can and can't be done with public domain works - as it stands there is a lot on how a work can become public domain, but not much on what this means to the end-user of a pd work.

You can do anything you want with a public domain work, provided it doesn't violate any other rights (e.g. privacy rights of individuals in public domain photos). Koyaanis Qatsi

Incentive for copyright

I object to the second paragraph - that "copyright was created to protect the financial incentive of those doing creative work as a means to encourage more creative work". The 'right to make copies' was originally granted to printers, hence publishers. The idea of incentive is highly contestable. - poil 14:16 May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Public domain and the Internet

I came to this page hoping to find an explicit statement correcting a common misconception that public domain means anything that's freely available in the public — i.e., posted on the Internet. While the existing text is useful and necessary as an encyclopedia entry, I would like to see a concise statement in this article that makes it clear that this is not true, in order to educate ordinary people with Internet-time attention spans. Any suggestions on how to do this within the existing text? -- Jeff Q 04:30, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

That's a common misconception?? The internet was not widely known to the lay public until the early '90s! Obviously people talked about the public domain, by that name, before that time. What did people laboring under that misconception think it meant then? Michael Hardy 23:28, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

While it may not have been a common misconception in the early 90s, it certainly is a common misconception, at least among internet users, today. To Jeff, I'd suggest that if you can come up with a concise statement you be bold and add it. anthony (see warning) 01:45, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

How do you know it's a common misconception? Is it found other than among the very young; i.e., are there people who never heard of the phrase public domain until they heard it used in connection with this novelty, the internet? Or have they been lulled into forgetting how they used the term before that? Michael Hardy 20:50, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, the current common misconception that "Internet-posted" means "public domain" is obviously relatively new. I'm sure there are many other misconceptions that are much older and continue to this day. However, the ability for anyone with access to an Internet-connected computer to confuse this issue is, in my opinion, a much greater threat that older ones that involved hardcopy publishing and analog media copying.

Usually I am bold about adding text that I request, but I paused on this one because this article clearly discusses the overall legal issues of public domain and copyrights. Michael Hardy has a valid concern about the larger view, and it wasn't immediately clear to me how and where to add such a concise statement without interrupting the flow. I'll ponder some more and give it a try shortly. -- Jeff Q 11:37, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I've added a rather lengthy section on Public domain and the Internet. It says all I wanted to say, but not very concisely. Everyone, feel free to tweak, adjust, or downright edit the heck out of it. ☺ I also added a footnote for a rather pithy quote from Nicholas Petreley that has some relevance, but I haven't figured out how to create a Wiki-proper internal footnote link. (My attempt to use the HTML method didn't work.) -- Jeff Q 19:18, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the common misconception of public domain has been fed by the media - they have started to talk about facts/stories coming into the public domain when they are leaked by governments etc. To take an example Shadow Defense Secretary quoted on the BBC, I am sure you would see many more even with a brief search:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1931103.stm

Not too fine a point on it, facts cannot be copyrighted. Likewise, it is common in court decisions to talk about ideas being in the public domain. There was nothing wrong with what the BBC said.

Contributions into the public domain

How can I best release all my contributions to Wikipedia from any kind of copyright control or licensing restrictions? As I understand it, articles that I've started can be released into the public domain, even though subsequent versions after editing on Wikipedia will be (presumably) licensed under the GFDL. What about individual edits to GFDL articles — can the edit itself be released into the public domain, even though the resultant article is GFDL? Also, I've heard rumours that the idea of the public domain doesn't exist in Japan — is this true? (Public domain doesn't mention it). If this is the case, what can I do to make sure that my contributions are available for use with as few a restrictions as possible in Japan? — Matt 10:17, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You definitely can commit your individual edits to the public domain, and other Wikipedians have done this (see User:Eloquence for example). To commit to the public domain, I believe all you have to do is make an "overt act of relinquishment". Putting a notice on your user page would most likely qualify, at least for works which were already created in the past. http://creativecommons.org/license/publicdomain-2 provides a somewhat more formal way to do this. I've never used it so I can't really tell you what to expect. You may also want to look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Guide_to_the_CC_dual-license and/or talk to some of the users in that last category (public domain). anthony (see warning) 12:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the links! — Matt 18:29, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's far from clear that it is possible to dedicate a work to the public domain in the U.S. or in any European country. The phrase "overt act of relinquishment" does not appear in any U.S. court decision, state or federal, or in the copyright act. Of course, Creative Commons has their standard dedication, but they do not make the law. The evidence supporting a right to release to the public domain is sparse and difficult to analyze. This article has been expanded to make that point clear.

Bullshit. "It is well settled that rights gained under the Copyright Act may be abandoned. But abandonment of a right must be manifested by some overt act indicating an intention to abandon that right. See Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100, 104 (9th Cir. 1960). " -- Micro-Star v. Formgen Inc., 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998). --71.235.102.239 06:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

digital texts

It would be nice if this article could explicitly address the issue of digital texts. A great deal of money may be invested by a company to create a digital edition (mostly digital texts, but also digital images) of old public domain manuscripts and books. Can such an investor then go ahead and prevent his electronic digital edition from being copied by means of a copyright? If he can, then where is his creative addition to the text itself? But if he cannot, then where is his financial incentive to further develope his digital library (especially if we are speaking of a non-profit organization that sells its product for a fee only to cover the costs of developing it)? If anyone could expand on this issue I would be grateful. 80.178.202.154 13:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Footnote

In response to the frequently-championed concept that "information is free", technology columnist Nicholas Petreley once wrote, "Those who want information to be free as a matter of principle should create some information and make it free." This statement concisely illustrates the conflict between the cultural desire to make original material readily and cheaply (or freely) available and the right of original-work creators to receive compensation for their work.

Sorry, but I don't see the concise illustration. Is Petreley implying that its hard, silly or illogical to make information free? Explain less concisely why the explanation is concise for the benefit of stupid readers like me, please.

I also contest the last sentence on grounds of POV and imprecise assertions that original-work creators have "a right to receive compensation" (morally? legally? ethically?), and that the desire is "cultural" (what culture?) Suggest as a basis (concise illustration still not fixed):

This statement concisely illustrates the conflict between the desire to have original material readily and cheaply (or freely) available and the desire to have authors receive compensation for original work.

This leaves unmentioned who desires what on what grounds and merely acknowledges the existence of these desires, which (IMO) is the only concise way to go here. It also removes the clumsy double "work" in "compensating original-work creators for work". JRM 11:50, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

Lovecraft

'The copyright status of Lovecraft's work is debatable, as no copyright renewals, which were necessary under the laws of that time, have been found. Also, two competing parties have independently claimed copyright ownership on his work

I'd be interested to know more about the above statement. Are some of Lovecraft's works PD? I notice Wikisource contains, for example, the texts of The Call of Cthulhu. Which competing parties claim copyright? --Axon 14:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PD versus "free to use for any purpose"?

There's a difference between releasing your work into the public domain, and releasing it with the {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} tag. I came here trying to learn what that difference is, but the article doesn't address it. Perhaps someone who knows could add that info to the article? dbenbenn | talk 21:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The difference is one of ownership. A work in the public domain has no legal owner, just an author, while one free for any use has an owner who retains no rights. I could see adding something like this, but I'm not sure where. Deco 01:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is there any practical result of this difference? It sounds like a purely philosophical distinction. dbenbenn | talk 14:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've since discovered, as this article notes, that a work cannot be legally released into the public domain by its author. This means that really {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} is your only choice to achieve what you want. Deco 03:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with dbenbenn in there. It looks like it is merely calling different names. Maybe the difference lays on the age. Looks like public domain is something necessaryly old enough to be put in there by "everyone" while the CopyrightedFreeUse would be one's attempt to put something in a kind of "private public domain" just while "the humanity" don't pick that something to put it in the public domain. Please, correct me if I'm wrong here.--Cawas 17:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Public Domain and Software

Software is a slightly special case because of the distinction between its exectuable files and the source code that describe how it was written. The executable files of a piece of software might be public domain, but this does not mean that the source code of the software is available or is available in the public domain. I'm not sure if this comment belongs in the article but I thought I'd log it here in case anyone else wants to add it.--Malcohol 13:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PD question

About the public domain, I have an old hitchcock film (original The Man Who Knew Too Much from 1930's) which is in the public domain. If I were to rip this film from the DVD I purchased to share online, would that be OK in the eyes of the law? --Mrmiscellanious 19:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a lawyer; don't ask here for legal advice. Having said that-- You first need to verify that it actually is public domain. There is almost no possibility that it is in the U.S. It isn't old enough to be completely free of expiration questions (before 1923). The major movie companies by and large made sure they did their renewals on time. Even if the original were public domain, you don't have a 1930s copy. Any minimally-creative addition on the DVD (things like commentaries, menus, etc.) would be copyrighted recently. There is no short simple answer to your question other than "no". For a longer answer, read Stephen Fishman's "Public Domain" book ISBN 0873374339. --Amillar 20:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, the movie itself is in the public domain, to the best of my knowledge. Many movies fell into the public domain. Commentaries and menus may be copyrighted, but that doesn't affect the movie. The more complex question is whether the transition from film to DVD is copyrightable; a good compression may well be creative, as might remastering.--Prosfilaes 01:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

How to tell if it's in the public domain

If you want to know what's in the pbublic domain and what isn't, check out User:Quadell/copyright. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 21:10, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

That's tricky. The author has to release it in the PD; or the time, which varies, expires; or all things from the source are PD, like everything from the US goverment is PD. --michael180 22:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Also, at least some US government lawyers believe that the US government releases works into the public domain only for US citizens. When it conveys a work to a non-US citizen, that work is still copyrighted. The NASA Open Source License explicitly acknowledges this state of affairs by noting that the license terms do not apply to US citizens, and they give Open Source terms. --RussNelson 26:07, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've being out of this subject for sometime, and I definetly lack of vocabulary and correct spelling but I wanted to add this thought right now. Maybe we're talking about two different types of Public Domain... One would be "US Public Domain" the other one "Humanity Public Domain". I like to believe US government releases works into both. --Cawas 14:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

court files

Is it true that court files in the United States are in the public domain? --84.139.36.162 01:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Generally, no. Why would they be any different from other copyrightable works, absent some statute to the contrary? So, perhaps a US Attorney's brief would be PD (as a US Govt work), but the defense brief would not. Similarly, a patent or patent application is copyrightable under US law, as a creative work of its author, but quaere if there is some "implied license by legal estoppel". Lupinelawyer 16:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Public Domain includes land

The article needs to be broadened. All land owned by the Federal Govt obtained through the Louisiana purchase, the addition of various western states in the 19th century etc., was referred to as the Public Domain until disposed of or reserved by the General Land Office. The term is also still used to refer to public lands. 138.88.163.79 01:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

See the article Public domain (land), created Aug 7, 2004. Lupinelawyer 15:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article:

(Source for this "lease" theory?? It doesn't hold up, because domain names can be taken away from cybersquatters and the like.) --128.12.170.6 (talk · contribs)

The tone of this article?

I can't see what exactly what's wrong with the tone of this article. Feel free to motivate that banner, but if no one does, it should be taken down... --83.250.216.22 20:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Editings from United States law

I cut the part about recopyrighting; Feist was unhelpful, and the link was less helpful (and court proceedings are not authorative.) The URAA (which I'm having trouble finding a Wikipedia link to) put a bunch of foreign copyright back under copyright. I corrected the unpublished works; there's no reason why it will be several decades.

The last two paragraphs are also wrong. Books published without copyright until 1978? dropped immediately into the public domain; the five year leeway was only for a short time before Berne kicked in. I don't have the concrete years for this, so I'm not changing this now.

"The contributions to the public domain have been effectively zero for many years now." isn't exactly true; in the years before the last copyright extension, books published in the early 1920s dropped into the public domain, as well as books not renewed in the early 1960s. --Prosfilaes 01:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Could we have some sources for Public domain#Revocability where no consideration? This has potential applications to Wikipedia (articles being derivative works of licensed-without-consideration submissions) and so is pretty important. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Quoting Moglen's Private Musings?

If what Professor Moglen has had to say was private, why is it quoted on Wikipedia? --Anon.

Because if he, a famed legal expert on these matters, who had such a large hand in various licenses without consideration, thinks that it is a problem, that's useful information? --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

More importantly, shouldn't they be in the GPL article, or the Moglen article, or the copyright article? This article has run out of control, it's too big for anyone to want to start fixing it, and people just keep dumping and dumping more info in. Wikipedia should contain an explanation of everthing related to the public domain, but all those explanations don't have to be contained in this article. Duplicating the content of other articles just leads to inconsistancies in Wikipedia, and lower quality since the peer review is diluted per instance of the duplicated info. Does anyone feel like deleting some duplicate content? or like moving content that isn't directly about the public domain, into the article that is directly about that content? Gronky 02:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

But if he said it privately (to whom?), how can we verify it? If someone else comes along and says that privately he told them the opposite, should we trust that? -- A different anon

Is It's A Wonderful Life recopyrighted?

There's a fragmentary sentence in the current version which says "It wasn't until 1993 when Republic Pictures relied on the 1990 United States Supreme Court ruling in Stewart v. Abend to enforce its claim of copyright of the film". Is this supposed to say "It wasn't restored until 1993..."? And if so, is this true? And if so, should the preceding sentence "In the United States, Frank Capra's classic film, 'It's a Wonderful Life' (1946) was put into the public domain in 1974" be changed to say something like "...was temporarily put into the public domain"? Also, doesn't this provide a counterexample to the earlier statement that "Generally, it is held under Feist that Congress does not have the power to re-copyright works that have fallen into the public domain"? Steve Summit (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No. It was never in the public domain, technically speaking. "Enforce" its claim of copyright is exactly the right word.--Prosfilaes 21:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The effect of public domain being inconsistent internationally

I'm interested in getting some opinions about this: Australian and US public domain are not the same, because when Australia extended their copyright terms in 2005, they did not do it retroactively. For example, Steamboat Willie should be public domain in Australia, but not in the US. Is it then possible for someone in Australia to "release" works into the US under a "free distribution" type of license? If someone in Australia modified Steamboat Willie, that would then be a new work and whoever modified it would own the copyright to the new work. Would they then be able to release the new work to the US? Thanks, to anyone who is interested enough to respond! - James Foster 13:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No. The original work, and any derivatives of that work, would still be copyrighted under US law, and importation would be illegal without permission of that copyright holder. Also note that the US didn't extend their copyright terms retroactively; for stuff published before 1978, it's a flat 95 years of copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes 00:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, since many countries use the (life of author) + X rule, what happens when the author is an organisation rather than a single person? Is the copyright then just X years? - James Foster 13:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Depends. I think it may be in Australia, but in the US, where X is 75, it's 20 + X.--Prosfilaes 00:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)