Talk:Public domain/Archive 2

A QUESTION

Can a book which is in the public domain in the U.S. be reprinted in the U.S. under a new title eventhough the old title has been trademarked by the original publisher? For example, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints has trademarked the name "Book of Mormon". But there are versions of the Book of the Mormon which are in the public domain. Can a public domain copy of the Book of Mormon be published under a new title without the consent of the above mentioned trademark owner? Jacob Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. — Walloon (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Disavowing Copyright Anonymously

I think this page doesn't yet answer this conundrum. Could it? Should it?

""" My personal history of pain leads me to want to contribute the code I discover into the public domain ... as into a wiki ... without making the code easy or hard to trace back to me. I don't want to contribute to making the issue of authorship significant. I don't want to disconnect me from people who read code well but don't read English legalese accurately (e.g., I have met non-native speakers who erroneously conclude that GPL code is free of copy restrictions). Me, often enough I've just thrown my code out into a public place like Members.aol.com without discussing who wrote it or how the morally inalienable right to mash up my code may be restricted by my lack of power as an individual employed to create other code ... A friend tells me that practice of mine can be unhelpful. My friend says that some corporate drones can only mash up code that is copyrighted and dedicated to the public domain. They have to run in fear from code that has no explicit license. Could we/ should we here point to some label that might solve this problem without identifying me as the anonymous author? Is there a simple one-line answer to this conundrum? Including lots of legalese is unworkable. It puts a barrier of understanding in front of any non-native speaker who's careful about what she/he agrees to. How about: (C) Copyright 2007 Anonymous, dedicated to the public domain from the USA. Would that work? Curiously yours, thanks in advance, """ We can't invent an answer here -- that would be verboten original research. But does this answer already exists somewhere else? Can we find it? Where? How? -- Pelavarre 21:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Revoking a Copywrite

If an author voluntarily pulls or waves a copywrite, does the work automatically enter public domain? Is it even possible to revoke a copywrite? While it may seem odd, I do think it's a valid what-if question.

Also, a good chart can be found here: http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm — 24.149.203.252 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean waives a copyright (the right to copy) not waves a copywrite. Yes, an author can waive his copyright by explicitly stating so in the work itself. There is no statutory provision under U.S. copyright law for such a waiver, but it's a legally sound procedure. — Walloon 08:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, is it possible to wave a copyright after it's been applied for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.203.252 (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your posts to this page by typing four tildas (~) after your post. I think you mean waive (relinquish) not wave (move hand to and fro). A copyright exists on a work from the moment of creation. — Walloon 14:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is somewhat oversimplified, and the section on revoking copyright is still quite vague. Since there are no statutory procedures for doing so, and it is not possible to "state" your desire to revoke copyright in things like a photograph without ruining its integrity (metadata is often stripped from photos once they are used on most websites), it still appears quite impossible to "legally" revoke your copyright. Moreover, it is also possible to "forge" the statement of revocation of copyright in anticipation of being sued for copyright infringement for a targeted work. By the same method, a copyright owner could pretend to revoke copyright for the purpose of entrapping someone into infringement. In either scenario, if a judge were faced with a copyright infringement claim, and the defense said that it was "donated to the public domain," all the author has to do is say, "I never did that," and the judge would have limited options here. Therefore, it is ambiguous and misleading to say that "it's a legally sound procedure." Unless someone can provide more data, I'd propose modifying this section to highlight these aspects and to clarify that, while there are ways that judges could attempt to discern the intent of the true author of the work, it is "technically" not possible to revoke copyright ownership or to donate works into the public domain. Dan Heller (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Fishman, The Public Domain (4th ed., Nolo, 2008), p. 58:

There is no prescribed formula for dedicating a work to the public domain. The author or other copyright owner simply has to make clear his or her intentions. For example, stating "This work is dedicated to the public domain" on a book or article's title page would be sufficient. It's not even necessary to make the dedication in writing. It could be done orally, but it's always best to write something down to avoid possible misunderstandings.

M. L. Cross, Abandonment of statutory copyright (84 A.L.R.2d 462):

It is widely recognized that the "proprietor" or owner of a statutory copyright may abandon it. National Comics Publications, Inc. v Fawcett Publications, Inc. (1951, CA2 NY) 191 F2d 594; Hampton v Paramount Pictures Corp. (1960, CA9 Cal) 279 F2d 100, 84 ALR2d 454, cert den 364 US 882, 5 L ed 2d 103, 81 S Ct 170; Harper & Bros. v M. A. Donohue & Co. (1905, CC Ill) 144 F 491, affd without op (CA7) 146 F 1023; West Pub. Co. v Edward Thompson Co. (1909, CC NY) 169 F 833, mod on other grounds (CA2) 176 F 833; Deward & Rich, Inc. v Bristol Sav. & L. Corp. (1940, DC Va) 34 F Supp 345, affd (CA4) 120 F2d 537; Sieff v Continental Auto Supply, Inc. (1941, DC Minn) 39 F Supp 683; Group Publishers, Inc. v Winchell (1949, DC NY) 86 F Supp 573; Wrench v Universal Pictures Co. (1952, DC NY) 104 F Supp 374; Mills Music, Inc. v Cromwell Music, Inc. (1954, DC NY) 126 F Supp 54; Trifari, Krussman & Fishel, Inc. v B. Steinberg-Kaslo Co. (1956, DC NY) 144 F Supp 577. See Holt Howard Associates, Inc. v Goldman (1959, DC NY) 177 F Supp 611, infra, § 3, and Public Affairs Associates, Inc. v Rickover (1960) 109 App DC 128, 284 F2d 262, vacated on other grounds 369 US 111, 7 L ed 2d 604, 82 S Ct 580, infra, § 2[b].

Supplement:

• Abandonment of copyright requires an intent by the copyright holder to surrender rights in the work and an overt act evidencing that intent. Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of America, Inc., 372 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2004).

• To establish abandonment of copyright, an infringer must demonstrate: (1) an intent by the copyright holder to surrender rights in its work; and (2) an overt act evidencing that intent. Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Carol Pub. Group, 11 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D. N.Y. 1998), order aff'd, 181 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 1999).

• In submitting building design, architect clearly and unambiguously manifested his intent to abandon any copyright protection over that particular design; architect signed a letter stating that he "reserve[d] no patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, or other intellectual property rights in any of the material that forms or is contained in [his] proposal." Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures L.C., 469 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (S.D. Fla. 2006).

— Walloon (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Poor Grammar & Unclear

"Only about 15 percent of all books are in the public domain, and 10 percent of all books that are still in print." 10% of which books?

Shouldn't that be "...all books that are, are still in print." ?

When you read an article, you should come away with the feeling that you knew little more than you did before you read it.

Mexico

i have removed information about perpetual copyrights in Mexico because [1] says that under the Mexican law passed in 2003 copyrights in Mexico lasts for creator's life plus 100 years. Kneiphof 17:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also _____ information about perpetual copyrights in Guatemala, Colombia and Samoa. According to the same website, copyrights extends 75 years after the death of creator in Guatemala and Samoa, and 80 after creator's death in Colombia Kneiphof 17:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Reread the statement. It's not saying the copyrights are perpetual; it's saying that it's out of copyright if "The last surviving author died at least 70 years before January 1 of the current year;" but these countries have longer copyright terms.--Prosfilaes 20:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, I'll pay more attention next time Kneiphof 23:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:CopyrightedFreeUse should be deprecated

I have proposed at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags that {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} should be deprecated in favor of {{NoRightsReserved}}. Please comment there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

icon for public domain

To some eyes, the Wikipedia icon for "public domain" is the "cent" currency symbol (¢) in a circle. See Cent (currency). To avoid that confusion, might it help to use three "forward slashes" instead of one -- similar to the "end of prohibition" signs on European highways? --Rapha.el 23:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think a better answer is to reverse the direction of the slash. This would be more consistent with standard symbols (cf. the prohibition sign for traffic/safety signage) assuming that the intent is to convey "no copyright". Mditto 21:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Buildings and locations

Are public and private locations in public domain for commercial purposes? For instance, without asking permission, can one take and sell photographs of such distinctive places as Harvard Yard, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Transamerica Pyramid, the White House, or Half-Dome? As with every inch on land in the US, such places are controlled or owned by private or public entities. Also, to whom can one turn to get definitive answers to specific circumstances? Asking the "owners" often leads to wrong answers. Thanks. Tectonicplate 23:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

U.S. copyright does not protect any building constructed before Dec. 1, 1990. Even if constructed after that date, if the building is located in or visible from a public place, the owner may not prevent others from making, distributing, or displaying photographs, movies, paintings, drawings, or other visual representations of the building. The exception is that if the building qualifies as a trademark, such as the Transamerica Pyramid mentioned above, a representation of the building cannot be used as a trademark by others. — Walloon (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Public domain = free commercial use?

This article does not address the use of Public Domain images for commercial use. Suppose I took the George Bush pic, stuck it on a coffee mug and sold it. Is this legal under Public Domain? Monkeyman^(talk) 20:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, public domain = free commercial use. there is no restriction on use of works classified as public domain, ie it does not matter whether it is for commercial use or not. --Mackinaw 23:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Mackinaw. This might be some good information to include in the article. No where does it explicitly state that commercial use is ok. Monkeyman^(talk) 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't it fairly clearly say that the definition of public domain is essentially that anything can be done with works in it? --maru (talk) contribs 04:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

it's a common confusion so i think it's worth stating explicitly. I changed last sentence of para 1 to read: "This body of information and creativity is considered to be part of the common cultural and intellectual heritage of humanity, which in general anyone may use or exploit, whether for commercial or non-commercial purposes." which should do the trick. Mackinaw 18:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

although as i read that, it is not strictly right, because of the "all humanity" statement. something may be considered public domain in one juristiction but not another. will change that I guess. Mackinaw 18:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

you have not specified if that's a question or a suggestion, you must be strict about it

STOP! you guys haven't addressed a gray area in which a "public" 501(c) non profit organization (NPO) holds the copyright, trademark or patent. The IP in this case is "non-proprietary" because there is not owned by a private entity, and by definition "in" the public domain. I believe IRS Code (or other laws in the U.S.) says that if an NPO develops a piece of IP using public fund (donations), it MUST retain the ownership of that IP (otherwise it will be an accounting fraud). Can somebody look into this and give me a third party view on this?

Lockheedengineer

Comic with wrong licence

http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/ Can please anyone write to Duke Law if it would be possible to get at least one page of the Comic under a CC-BY licence? It would be a fine illustration --Historiograf 18:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Xerox

"Xerox was also successful in avoiding its name becoming synonymous with the act of photocopying."

I'm not convinced. I buy the bit about Nintendo, but when I hear the word "Xerox" it's usually a verb meaning simply "to photocopy". Or was that supposed to mean that it hasn't lost its legal status? If so, it needs to be more clear. Should it say something like "avoided its name becoming genericized"? --WurdBendur 07:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Works of individual states

Are the works of individual states of the United States covered under public domain as well (i.e. state vs. federal)? Or even the works of cities and other municipalities? It seems as though public domain applies to the federal government only; can anyone verify this? One state I can say for sure releases its works into the public domain unless specified: California, as stated on its website on its "conditions of use" page: http://www.ca.gov/ --Geopgeop 02:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No that's not correct. Read carefully: However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use. I understand this that the state claims copyright also for own images made by employees of the state --Historiograf 17:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I did say "unless specified", didn't I? --Geopgeop 09:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. The site said "unless otherwise indicated"...

IN DOUBT THERE IS A GOLD RULE: ASK THEM --Historiograf 01:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• US federal works are in the public domain. That (well-known) rule about US government works applies only to US federal government works. Individual states own the copyrights to their own works. It's possible that some states have also dedicated their works to the public domain, but I don't know of any and have never researched the question. --lquilter 03:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Works of Nonprofit Organizations (Public Charities)

HELP!! you guys haven't addressed a gray area in which a "public" 501(c) non profit organization (NPO) holds the copyright, trademark or patent. The IP in this case is "non-proprietary" because there is not owned by a private entity, and by definition "in" the public domain. I believe IRS Code (or other laws in the U.S.) says that if an NPO develops a piece of IP using public fund (donations), it MUST retain the ownership of that IP (otherwise it will be an accounting fraud). Can somebody look into this and give me a third party view on this? Lockheedengineer

What sort of 501(c)(3) is "public", in your view? Are you referring to state and federal entities (and their respective rules of ownership), or to private organizations that happen to qualify as "public charities" (e.g., The United Way)? Just because an NPO obtains funding from the public does not mean its assets are "owned" by the public in the sense of corporate control. Also note that IP developed internally by a company has NO VALUE on the balance sheet; only IP procured from others (or sold) has a capital value for accounting purposes. Lupinelawyer 18:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of this provision, but it's hard to prove a negative. If you think such a provision exists the IRS Code or some other U.S. law, you'd have to point it out for us. — Walloon (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions about the expiration section

Hi, I was wondering if someone could clarify a few things for me. First, the expiration section is referring to the copyrights of published works, right? I see later in the article that unpublished works have a different set of criteria for when their copyright expires. In the case that the expiration section is referring to published works only, perhaps it should be clarified that a different set of criteria are used to determine the expiration of copyright for unpublished works.

Second, I have been told that works published before 1923 are in the public domain. However, the expiration section of the article says one of the requirements for something to be in the public domain is "The last surviving author died at least 70 years before January 1 of the current year." So, this year (2006) it sets the date of death of the author at 1936. I imagine many authors whose works were created before 1923 would still be alive in 1936 and so this negates the axiom "works published before 1923 are public domain," correct? --fissionchips303 01:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it looks as if it had to say not "if all the conditions are satisfied", but "any". I mean, a work published in 1930, with the author dead on 1932 (more than 70 years ago), is in the public domain (isn't it), even if it was published after 1923. Can someone clarify it? --81.38.183.95 12:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, not correct. Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death. For a work already under the first term of its copyright as of January 1, 1978, the first term lasted 28 years, followed by an automatic copyright renewal of 67 years, for a total of 95 years. Any copyright still in its renewal term as of 1998 has a copyright term of 95 years from the date copyright was originally secured. — Walloon 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like "either of the first two and none of the last two" to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.176.72 (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Cuban Copyright

I'm not sure where to pose this question, so I'll ask it here:

Several images related to the subject of Cuba are currently marked All cuban images before 1997 are considered in Public Domain as they did not sign the Berne Convention pact until 1997 (See, for example, Image:FidelGuerilla.JPG)

Now, as far as I understand, this only applies if copyright on the images had already expired in Cuba prior to Cuba signing the convention in 1997. [2] (If I'm reading this incorrectly, please let me know.)

As such, I'm questioning whether these images should in fact be listed as PD. Does anyone know what copyright, if any, these images would have originally held in Cuba, and the length of said copyright would have been?

Thanks. -- 156.34.208.152 06:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If the work was in the public domain in its home country as of January 1, 1996, it is in the public domain in the United States. But what if the work was not in the public domain in its home country as of Jan. 1, 1996? Works published in almost all foreign countries (including Cuba) since January 1, 1978 receive the same U.S. copyright term as works published in the United States, whether or not the work contained a copyright notice. The copyright duration for works first published outside the U.S. before 1978 may depend on whether the work involved contained a copyright notice. — Walloon (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A question

In 2003, A Perfect Circle covered the Mephis Minnie song When the Levee Breaks (also famously covered by Led Zeppelin) for their album eMOTIVe. The album liner notes state it's "public domain", but the song is from 1929 and Mephis Minnie died in 1973! Why is this song public domain? I thought that only things done before 1923 are public domain? --62.47.40.114 12:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

All this applies only in the US, but while everything printed before 1923 is in the public domain, many works published between 1923 and 1989 fell into the public domain because they weren't registered properly or weren't renewed. Non-American works were restored to copyright, but many American works from that period are still out of copyright.--Prosfilaes 23:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the article, not everything published before 1923 is in public domain. Only if the author died more than 70 years ago. --81.38.183.95 12:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is never really clear about this; the pre-1923 rule is good for the US. When it says only if the author died more than 70 years ago, it's speaking globally.--Prosfilaes 19:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Under U.S. copyright law, the "life of the author plus 70 years" rule applies only to works published since Jan. 1, 1978, and unpublished works. All works published before 1923 are in the public domain. — Walloon (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Public domain government of India website

I had created a Template to be used for Images and resources that will be copied from Government of India website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-India-Gov

This need to be refined and made short and content worthy. Requires help. Chanakyathegreat 15:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening" by Robert Frost

"Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening", a poem by Robert Frost, first appeared in the March 7, 1923 edition of the weekly magazine, "The New Republic." It appeared without any notice of copyright. However the entire magazine WAS copyrighted as is the practice of most periodicals. The magazine was copyrighted on March 8, 1923.

On November 15, 1923 Robert Frost copyrighted a book of his poetry called "New Hampshire." "New Hampshire" contained the poem "Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening."

"New Hampshire" was renewed the appropriate 28 years later on 9/20/51. However, the March 7, 1923 edition of "The New Republic" was NOT renewed.

Therefore, is the poem in public domain because it first appeared without notice of copyright? Or is it a copyrighted work because "New Hampshire" was copyrighted and properly renewed? Or would that make a difference since "New Hampshire" was copyrighted eight months AFTER the poem's original publication? OR did the original "total edition" copyright of "The New Republic" March 7 issue keep it under copyright until "New Hampshire" was renewed in 1951, even though "The New Republic" itself was not renewed? Or is there yet another law, etc. that pertains to this that may affect this question(s)?

Thank you to anyone who can shed any light on this. Jkfischer 03:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Without examining whether "The New Republic" is copyrighted, I point out that the copyright only applies to what was in that issue of the magazine. If that issue is public domain, only that copy of the poem would be PD. You wouldn't be able to take the poem from a copyrighted publication. Someone would have to get a copy of the poem from the PD magazine and type it in. That version would have whatever licensing the creator places on it, and could be reused if its licensing allows that. (SEWilco 16:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

Pure copying doesn't make a new copyright; see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and Feist v. Rural. Take the Raven, to ignore the hard parts of the original question. You could take a copy of the Raven from anywhere provided that it is the same as one clearly in the public domain. If someone types in the Raven from a public domain publication, you could use it whether or not they liked it, provided that you don't have any form of contract with that person.--Prosfilaes 18:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. But there might be more than one version. The reference to "the poem" assumes there is one version, and if you don't start from the PD version then you have to figure out if you definitely have the same version which is in the PD. (SEWilco 18:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

I suspect you'd have to ask a lawyer. The magazine copyright covered the contents; whether the renewal for New Hampshire in the same year as the magazine would have been renewed covered the copyright on the poem is a harder question.--Prosfilaes 18:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This indeed is a tricky question. Although not until the Copyright Act of 1976 did the copyright code explicitly state that the terms of all copyrights ended on the last day of the calendar year, federal courts had already interpreted the copyright code to mean that. "We can see no reason why the public should take one day in the year stated rather than another; in other words the public has no reason to assume that the work is in the public domain until the year has expired." Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. Jerry Vogel Music Co., 161 F.2d 406, 410 (C.A.2, 1947). Thus, the copyright of "Stopping by Woods" was renewed timely in 1951 by the renewal of the book New Hampshire. — Walloon (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright in the UK

Was unable to find the information I was after regarding UK copyright, could someone answer our questions here? Thanks. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 14:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I live in the U.K., and I think I found some important information in a book about normal Copyright rules for the U.K. including the rule of the "shorter term" which applies to foreign works. Copyright expires in the U.K. 70 years after the author or the creator dies. For works that have multiple authors or creators, then it is 70 years after the longest living author or creator died. So from 2010, it would be any author or creator/longest living author or creator (for multiple works) who died in or before 1940. Any translations or editions published after the original publication date are out of copyright after 50 years. Angelprincess72 (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Listing of Public Domain Literature

I would find this extremely worthwhile information to have. Can someone start a listing of literature in the public domain? Wikisource probably doesn't yet include everything in PD, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.99.87 (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2007) (UTC)

• No, no, this is a bad bad idea! Public domain varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, depends on what type of law we're talking about (copyright, trademark, etc.), and is a lot of works. --lquilter 02:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could pick out the best link out of this search http://www.google.com/search?q=Public+Domain+Literature, and put it in external links 75.15.236.62

Perhaps you can be more specific on what the goal is? A list of PD literature would have to include everything published before certain dates. Just using a 1922 date, consider that there was a lot of stuff printed before 1922. (SEWilco 18:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

As said above, it all depends on what jurisdiction you are talking about. A work in the public domain in one country may be under copyright in another country. — Walloon (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism

How does the public domain status of a work relate to plagiarism? My assumption would be that the verbatim copying of a public domain work would still be plagiarism. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 13:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The public domain status only is relevant to the legality of copying. Plagiarism requires presenting the work as being by someone other than the original author. (SEWilco 16:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

I see several articles that say that the content comes from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Usually those pages are simply marked with the {{1911}} tag. I've often wondered if copying verbatim from the encyclopedia was ok for those articles or if paraphrasing, etc was necessary. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 19:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It is PD, so copying verbatim is OK. Copyediting and NPOV editing may be necessary. See Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica and Category:1911 Britannica templates. (SEWilco 04:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

Copyrighted material may be used without permission under fair use. Authors reusing any portion of copyrighted material or work in the public domain are ethically or professionally obligated to acknowledged the original author's contribution. Failure to acknowledge the original author's contribution is plagiarism. Paradoxos 00:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Band

There is a band called Public Domain but they weren't very notable. I think they only released a couple of singles (one of which I own). but they had probably come and gone within 12 months. Mglovesfun 08:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Revoking a release to the public domain?

If an image is uploaded to Wikipedia (and released into the public domain), can that decision be withdrawn and the image deleted? Or once done can never be undone? -- Pesco 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but I think that if the photographer has the original, the photographer (or whoever the copyright holder is) can do whatever they want with the original. Copies of the original probably can be put under whatever license the photographer wants to use. That would not affect the Wikipedia copy. If it really matters you might ask a lawyer. (SEWilco 20:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Under U.S. copyright law, if the author of the work intentionally dedicates the work to the public domain, he or she cannot withdraw that dedication. When a person dedicates a work to the public domain, he surrenders all rights, including the right of reversion. — Walloon (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Horrible section of text

“ Another example would be Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Being an abstract idea it has therefore never been patentable. After Darwin constructed his theory, he did not disclose it for over a decade (see Development of Darwin's theory). He could have kept his manuscript in his desk drawer forever but once he published the idea, the idea itself entered public domain. However, the carrier of his ideas, in the form of a book titled The Origin of Species, was covered by copyright (though, since he died in 1882, the copyright has since expired). ”

That section of text, taken from the 'disclaimer of interest' section, reads very badly, and something about it makes me feel cynical of its sincerity. Probably just personal paranoia, but it looks, to me, like it may have been added by someone with an extreme viewpoint, or something... Whoever added it and for whatever reason, it seems slightly out of place, badly written and rather odd. J Milburn 19:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The prose isn't very good, but I don't see any other problems overall. It's true, all theories are public domain.--Orthologist 16:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Public Domain

Why has the criteria all of a suddent changed from: PD-old = This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.

to

This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years. ?? Milliot 26 March, 2007

Merge All Rites Reversed

All Rites Reversed is a minor topic that I think is probably not going to grow any larger than it is. Its definition is identical to that of the public domain so I think that a merger into this article makes a whole lot of sense. Thoughts? —mako (talk•contribs) 17:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say to keep them separate - All Rites Reversed has no legal meaning, unlike Public Domain, and it is almost exclusively used in Discordian contexts. Also, I don't know how you'd merge them - mentioning Discordianism here would seem spammy, but redirecting All Rites Reversed to a page that doesn't mention it seems wrong as well. DenisMoskowitz 19:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, though for perhaps personal reasons: PD is important and should be promoted strongly. Merging it with Discordianist views may taint it for some people. Also, for less personal reasons: a merge should only be done when either two things are the same (not the case here), or one is entirely a subset of the other, in which case the subset should be merged with the superset. Rites Reversed isn't really either a subset or a superset of PD: there is significant overlap.DewiMorgan 12:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be merged. It is not a notable topic in its own right. Some parts should be mentioned in public domain and/or copyleft and some discordian article. Gronky 13:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It should not be merged into this one... If it doesn't deserve it's own article, delete the thing entirely or forward it to some article about the dopes who came up with the term. Putting that info here would just stink this page up. DreamGuy 22:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why PD is not All Rites Reversed

[made as a separate section so as not to confuse the vote counting]

Further to my comment above, some further anti-merge arguments. I am aware that I probably feel too strongly on this issue.

The merge proposal above claims the All Rights Reversed definition "is identical to that of the public domain". This seems impossible to support given the definitions written on each page, articularly the line which explicitly proves the assertion wrong: "Unlike public domain status, All Rites Reversed has no formal legal meaning.".

ARR is nothing more or less than a copyright license. This means:

• the US Government may not release stuff under the ARR banner; their stuff is PD.
• After its copyright term expired, a work may not be released under ARR; only under PD.
• American citizens can legally release their stuff under ARR, and have it considered as ARR, without making any specific effort to distribute; but to release it under PD and have it legally considered as PD, they must fulfil the conditions for a work to enter PD.
• PD stuff may be re-released under ARR by anyone at any time.
• ARR stuff may not be re-released under PD without fulfilling the conditions for a work to enter PD.

These differences, particularly the last, make the distinction clear: ARR is a copyright license.

It's all very discordian: there's no one single Kopyleft agreement, or ARR agreement like there is a GNU one - but definitely, from a quick Google search for Kopyleft and ARR, even "Act like PD" isn't overwhelmingly the primary meaning, and I couldn't find any explanations of KopyLeft or ARR that claimed it meant that.

However, even in that meaning, as the most liberal possible copyright license, which effectively says "Take this and treat it as if it was public domain", it's just a legal trick to try to allow citizens to release stuff under a copyright license as close to PD as US copyright law will permit. It is, and will most likely always remain, legally untested. The only way it will ever be tested is in the very unlikely case where an ARR author tries to revoke his licence. If it is then ruled that ARR represents an "irrevocable, universal, transferable license to copy without limitation", then it will have withstood the test, and ARR documents can be treated as de-facto PD, until sufficient time has passed for them to fall out of copyright and become genuine PD. Alternatively, it could be interpreted as a non-enforceable "promise not to sue". Either way, it would be interpreted as a license, not as PD.

Here is the copyleft notice from FreeSharing.org, via the talk page on ARR:

All information on this site is CopyLeft (K) 2005, All Rights Reversed and considered to be eternally in the public domain for non-profit usage. You may freely use, duplicate or modify any information on this site provided it remains in the public domain.

(emphases mine, to highlight the parts that indicate this is clearly a license, not a release (or even an effort to release) onto the real public domain).

Other sites ([3], [4]) use (K) to mean "attribute properly" rather than "noncommercial use".

(Also, there is clearly no way in which PD is in any way "identical" to the book "All Rites Reversed" described on that page.)

Finally, the lesser claim that ARR is "probably not going to grow any larger than it is" may prove false since there are at least two proposals for changes in the talk page (no, neither are by me, and possibly both are rather old: at least one is), and if the merge vote goes to "no", then I'll probably clean up these arguments, and plonk it in the ARR talk section too, maybe even add add references and stuff, and put bits of it into the article, if people out there who are genuinely confusing the two topics.

An encyclopaedia is for unambiguously defining specific terms, not conflating sorta-similar terms. DewiMorgan 03:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Patent expiration term

The article says that "in most countries, patents expire 20 years after they are filed". I thought it is "after they are granted". Paul Koning 15:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Under US law, for example, patents filed prior to 1995 would expire 17 years after date of issue, but this was abused by some inventors who delayed issuance, increasing their profits. Congress changed the law so that US patents expire 20 years after date of filing, or (if filed before 1995) 17 years after issuance, whichever is later.Lupinelawyer (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

how to put in public domain

It is amazingly difficult to find out how to put original material into the public domain. The article is good but could still be improved. Google does not have a single match for "how to put in public domain"!

• Union for the Public Domain
• Public Domain Dedication

-69.87.204.109 19:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See also http://www.saint-andre.com/thoughts/publicdomain.html Who's Afraid of the Public Domain? Peter Saint-Andre 2006-12-30
For thoughts on how to why to do so.-69.87.204.109 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The Berne convention, pretty much the defacto copyright protection for most of the world, left the requirements of public domain completely out of its language (unlike previous laws in the USA and I presume elsewhere). Its definitely an important subject, and deserves to be included here. As it is, public domain exists (and has always existed), but is not defined, which means that it is left to any court that wants to to decide. This situation benefits nobody except for lawyers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.229.50.10 (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter Pan

DreamGuy, please explain why Peter Pan is in the public domain in the UK. The British law is clear; the hospital has a certain subset of the standard rights of copyright forever.--Prosfilaes 18:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not how copyright works. When I saw news reports about the situation I saw nothing on any law, and the section of the hospital web page is unclear and certainly not an unbiased source. News reports a few years back made it clear that Peter Pan *was* in the public domain, and that the hospital was merely trying to guilt people into paying up anyway. It's not uncommon for organizations (museums, pulishers, etc.) to try to claim copyrights they do not have. If a law had been passed to grant the hospital certain rights to payment, the book would still be in public domain but just with a (rather ridiculous and not enforceable worldwide) side condition. DreamGuy 19:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The link isn't to the hospital web page; it's to a site that hosts a copy of British law, and it's a link to the relevant section of the law. Copyright's not enforceable worldwide; there are many works still in copyright in the UK and EU under life+70 that aren't in copyright in the US or life+50 countries. It's clear that under the definition of public domain given in the introduction, it's not in the public domain; there exists a legal entity that can enforce proprietary rights on the work.--Prosfilaes 08:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So, no response? Brief news reports are never the greatest of sources, and "[w]hen I saw news reports about the situation I saw nothing on any law" is a lousy argument; now we're telling you about the law. The link is just a convenience; we're citing British law here, and would be fully cited even without the link. Unless you can provide some evidence that the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Schedule 6) doesn't in fact say what we and that link claim it does, please don't delete that cited fact.

Supporting links:

• The Hospital
• A third party commenter
• Peter Pan which also cites the law and
• [5] the UK government itself, which fairly clearly states that "301. The provisions of Schedule 6 have effect for conferring on trustees for the benefit of the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, London, a right to a royalty in respect of the public performance, commercial publication, broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service of the play "Peter Pan" by Sir James Matthew Barrie, or of any adaptation of that work, notwithstanding that copyright in the work expired on 31st December 1987.", even though it doesn't spell out Schedule 6 here.

So don't tell me about reliable sources; we have multiple confirming reliable sources here.--Prosfilaes 13:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily stop by regularly, but when I finally did I checked the links... A hospital can claim anything they want regarding copyright, especially when they want royalties. That doesn't make it so. The third party commentator is not a WP:RS in the slightest, especially as he seems to be demanding that other countries follow British law under a particularly bizarre legal argument with no basis in law. The Peter Pan article does not mention this (only claiming without evidence offhandedly that the copyright is in effect), and Wikipedia article's are not reliable sources for proving whether something should be in Wikipedia anyway (it's be a circular argument - why is it here? cuz it's there? why is it there? because it's here). The link you gave me to the act was the wrong page, but on the correct page it specifically does say that the copyright did expire and mentions "copyright if it existed" -- which means it doesn't. What this act apparently did was pass a law to require royalties for public displays of certain public events based upon the original play (and it specifies the play, not the character, which debuted before the play and would therefore not be covered not covered by this act) despite Peter Pan being in the public domain. DreamGuy (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A Third Party???

Is the public domain a real third party or an invalid third party? Jonghyunchung 20:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Public Domain worldwide?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Deep_sea_vent_chemistry_diagram.jpg --> Licensing: This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government ... So it can't be used freely worldwide? ALu06 18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

For the U.S., federal government works are not eligible for copyright protection (17 USC 105). It stands to reason that this applies world-wide, for it is not evident how the U.S. government could assert copyright in some other country over a work that cannot be copyrighted by its own laws in the originating country (the U.S.). Still, there are differing opinions, see the CENDI Copyright FAQ list, 3.1.7 and a discussion on that at the LibraryLaw Blog. For all practical purposes, however, we can assume works produced by the U.S. government or its employees in the course of their duties to be copyright-free and in the public domain world-wide.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain) ALu06 18:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how the different juristictions interact? For example if a work is PD in Australia but not in the USA then which 'distributions' over the internet would constitute a copyright infringement:

• a user in USA downloads a copy from a server in Australia? (does the distribution happen at the server or at the client?)
• a user in the USA downloads a copy from some proxy server in Australia? (is the proxy server doing the infringing distribution?)
• a user does a download from Australia, but while pptped from an office network resulting in the packets getting routed through USA and the Australian server apparently distributing to the USA?

Is project Gutenberg exposed to legal risk from hosting works that are in copyright somewhere in the world (e.g. UK)? This might be an interesting area to cover in the article. 211.27.106.137 02:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Media in the public domain

The article incorrectly stated that Alfred Hitchcock's "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is in the Public Domain. The US rights were re-asserted by Carlton Film Distributors Ltd in 1997. Davepattern 06:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Freely obtained

To me, the whole "Freely obtained does not mean free to republish" section reads like an editorial. Anyone else agree? — Walloon 03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Something like that section helps reduce confusion between several meanings of the word "free". (SEWilco 04:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Public Domain a proper name?

Sometimes I see Public Domain capitalize and sometimes I see it not capitalized. Does anyone know if it's a proper name? Rocket000 (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Disgusting intro

The introduction of this article is simply disgusting. It only explains the consequences of public domain, not what it essentially is. Can someone either explain me why this is or change it? Thanks in advance, tulcod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulcod (talk • contribs) 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

K, seems like it has been done by JasonAQuest --Tulcod (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hungary PD: Artistic photographs?

According to Hungarian copyright law (tranlation available from unesco), only "artistic" photgraphs are covered by copyright. Anyone know what definition of "artistic" they are using? Does this mean historic photographs taken for documentary rather than artistic purposes are Public Domain? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Can one re-release a work in public domain, under a different licence (full copyright, GFDL etc.) Guy0307 (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

no, unless substantial changes are made to the work. Mackinaw (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

yes you can. note, if you create a work you can release it under GFDL, but you still own it and can use the work under any other terms, including within a fully copyrighted collection. no one else can do that, anyone else picking up the GFDL work could only distribute it under GFDL. likewise, if you release it as public domain, you are still not prevented from releasing it under any other terms, including fully copyrighted. you could collect royalties and so on for permissions to reproduce the copyrighted work. however, if someone noticed it was also available under public domain they could choose to use that version instead and not pay you anything. but i am sure you would be fully within your rights to re-release it, you would be doing nothing in violation of any law. i am not a lawyer, however. doncram (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement above, "If you release [a work] as public domain, you are still not prevented from releasing it under any other terms, including fully copyrighted", is not correct under U.S. copyright law. Only changes or additions to the public domain work can be copyrighted. However, one can republish a public domain work under a restrictive license as to its use, and as long as a person accepts those terms, the license is binding. U.S. courts have almost always upheld such licensing. But that is contract law, not copyright law. — Walloon (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"available in the public domain"

Reading some law journals, I see the phrase "available in the public domain" often used to mean that something can be freely obtained, not that it is unfettered by copyright. For example, several cases established that a consumer could not sue a manufacture who failed to warn that specific consumer of the danger of a product, on the grounds that the information was "available in the public domain". Clearly this refers to the ease of obtaining the information and not to whether the information was in a copyrighted document or not. However, I did not find a precise explanation of this use of the phrase "available in the public domain". If someone knowledgeable on this issue could clarify this, it would be appreciated. 150.203.160.114 (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a great number of people use "public domain" incorrectly when they mean something along the lines of: "available at no cost to the public." Access to (or possession or public display of) a copy has NOTHING to do with its underlying copyright ownership or "public domain" status. A copyright owner may give away free copies of protected works, and (again) this has NOTHING to do with losing the remaining rights of copyright.Lupinelawyer (talk) 07:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Could use a list of usable public domain statements

I'd like to put a statement in the header of a perl script, stating that the script is available to the public for unlimited use provided that credit is given to the original author. From my readings of these articles, this is a type of copyleft but there are other kinds, such as requiring that all derivative works be public domain. I'd find it useful to have a list of copyleft statements, each granting a different combination of rights, and I could pick which one I want to use. I guess I'll just have to make one up... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.159.105 (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Being in the public domain means it can be used by anyone in any way. If you require that credit be given, you're placing a restriction upon usage and thus it is not in the public domain. If you request that credit be given, you're asking others to do something optional and you are not being restrictive. Such requests from providers of public domain material are common. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Graph is wrong

The graph that is currently in the article says that works published since 1978 are now under U.S. copyright for 105 years. Not true, and I don't know where the creator of that graph got that figure. To quote directly from the U.S. Copyright Office's Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright:

Works created on or after January 1, 1978: For works created after its effective date, the U.S. copyright law adopts the basic “life-plus-seventy” system already in effect in most other countries. A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is given a term lasting for the author’s life, plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death. In the case of “a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,” the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author’s death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author’s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

The graph is also inaccurate because, for works created since 1978, it does not distinguish between the copyright term for a work by an author (life + 70 years), or a work made for hire (95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter). — Walloon (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
After no response for five months, I have deleted the chart due to inaccurate data. — Walloon (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

extemely geographically one-sided

this is only really applicable to america, it is only because of the constitution that everything eventually ends up in the public domain, other countries (ie france) have rights that last indefinately, i forget what the template for this is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.65.202 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Can material in public domain be copyrighted by quoting or paraphrasing in a commercial publication?

If material in a US government document is quoted or paraphrased in a commercial publication, does the owner of the copyright for the commercial publication acquire copyright to that material?Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not an appropriate place to pose legal questions. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, Mervyn Emrys is asking about information which he wishes to use as a source on a Wikipedia article, so it is an appropriate question to ask, but this might not be the best place to ask it. Mervyn, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright to see if those answer your questions. If not, you could try posting at one of the talkpages there, or at the Wikipedia help desk. --Elonka 16:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not seeking legal advice. I'm merely pointing out that the articles on Public Domain and Copyright are both seriously deficient in their treatment of the nonapplicability of copyright law to publications in the public domain. Passing references are inadequate to inform Wiki editors about this issue. Examples are required.

Example: If a copyrighted textbook on budgeting includes information from the historical tables about annual deficits and total national debt contained in an annual U.S. budget proposal (a US government document), does the publisher of the budgeting textbook acquire a copyright on that information? The answer is clearly "no" but there is nothing in these two articles that would lead anyone to this conclusion.

Example: When the copyright on a commercial book expires and is not renewed, does it pass into the public domain? Permanently?

I will consider these articles substandard until these questions are addressed in one article or the other. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to have information added, add it. (And if you don't know the answer, as your initial query suggested, please go find it, rather than asking that other people find it for you.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Jason, please review WP:BITE? Thanks. And Mervyn, Jason does have a point. Wikipedia has a page WP:BOLD "Be bold!" which basically says, "If you think a page is substandard, go ahead and fix it." We definitely have lots of work that needs doing! --Elonka 15:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This article contains the statement that "It is axiomatic that material in the public domain is not protected by copyright, even when incorporated into a copyrighted work." citing Nimmer. It also says, "Although it is held under Feist v. Rural that Congress does not have the power to re-copyright works that have fallen into the public domain, re-copyrighting has happened." These appear to raise more questions for Mervyn Emrys than they answer, perhaps to the level of needing another section with more detailed analysis or clarifying the issues of permanence. Lupinelawyer (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This is most helpful. It's a long article and the first statement does not stand out in a logical place. It would also be useful if there was a complete cite to Nimmer in the Footnotes or References, which there is not. The Feist quote does raise more questions than it answers. Thankyou Lupinelawyer for this beginning. Your suggestion of a new section is a good one, I think. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia:Public domain#Derived works and restorations of works in the public domain covers the topic of an exact copy of a PD work. Stuff which is marked as a quotation should be an exact copy of the original, but reused text might have unmarked changes. There might be alterations in the quotation, such as different fonts or spelling being used during transcription. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Fonts are not eligible for copyright. As for spelling variations, they do not meet a minimal creativity standard. — Walloon (talk) 08:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Walloon, agree with the point you're making though for clarification fonts themselves are subject to copyright, choice of fonts could be part of a novel typographical design and hence creative design which is automatically copyrighted, but use of different fonts is hardly likely to be an issue. If public domain text has been significantly paraphrased, that paraphrase would be a new text and so copyright could apply to it, but not to the original. If a public domain text is reproduced verbatim, then WP:PLAGIARISM requires that to be made explicit and gives guidance on what to do. In my understanding. . dave souza, talk 22:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Stand corrected about fonts, as my thought was that a typeface would be like any other graphic design and typographers would be entitled to copyright protection. However, it appears that computer fonts commonly have other protection for the algorithms, so such fonts are subject to protected status. Hence Arial :-( dave souza, talk 23:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No, "fonts themselves" are not protected by U.S. copyright law. Stephen Fishman writes in The Public Domain (4th ed.), "This is so whether they are generated by a computer program, or represented in drawings, hard metal type, or any other form." However, font software programs can be protected by copyright. — Walloon (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Does creating an image of a document in the public domain reset copyright?

I am trying to understand whether documents published in the 18th century but put on microform get renewed copyright by the "new" publisher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwwaddell (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia talk pages are not an answer/research service. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Under U.S. copyright law, no, the documents themselves do not get a renewed copyright. — Walloon (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Written works after 1978 enter the public domain?

I don't think there's any information in this article as to when written works created after 1978 enter the public domain. Surprising but true. The article covers works created in just about every era except the contemporary one. Someone who's invested in this article should add this info, as it's most pertinent to the topic and to readers. Thanks. Cheers, ask123 (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Public domain VS. Copyright.

If something is entered into the public domain, does this mean that the public domain item could still be copyrighted?

For example, if an author, with his name on the book, releases his book into the public domain, does this mean that it can be copyrighted by someone else and used by that someone else for profitable and hegemonic reasons?

If this would be the case, then the someone else who copyrights the book has exclusive rights to the book and not the author of the book, therefore the author cannot claim ownership nor hand out his book to people without being sued by the someone else, since U.S. Copyright laws are very unfair to the less fortunate, being the poor and low income, and the laws are beneficial to the more fortunate, being the wealthy elite.

The works of the United States government are in the public domain, but i don't know if they have ever been attempted to be copyrighted or not.

Ожиданиесчастья (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably should seek legal advice from a lawyer, not here. But without giving leagal advice, the answer would be generally "no." Attempts have been made to copyright U.S. government docs but assertions by others that they hold such a copyright would generally not stand up in court. Reagan administration attempted to "privatize" some government docs, but I believe such efforts were not enforceable in court. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The answer is "no". Once a work has entered the public domain in the United States, no one may put it back under copyright. An author or publisher may take a public domain book, and add things like new illustrations, annotations, an introduction, etc., and those additions to the public domain work are under copyright. But the public domain work itself remains in the public domain. How are U.S. copyright laws "very unfair to the less fortunate"? A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is given a copyright term lasting for the author’s life, plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death. It is not necessary to register the copyright ($35) until one wishes to pursue a claim of copyright infringement. — Walloon (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Feist v Rural

the article cites Feist stating that congress does not have the power to re-copyright public domain works. I tried to figure out where in the ruling this lies, and could not. Could someone help me find the part of the decision that makes this ruling?Scientus (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand

The piece about length of copyright in NZ is wrong. It's copyright lasts 50 past the death of the original author, or for sound/films, 50 years past the end of the year it came out. http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM345634.html?search=ts_all%40act%40bill%40regulation_copyright_resel&p=1&sr=1Winterdenni (talk) 07:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Screencap of video

I wonder, if I take a screencap of a video, to make a picture, from this .gov site: [6], will it be public domain or fair use? Bib (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

How to determine if something is public domain in the US

I came here looking to determine how to find something's (a comic book character from the early 1940s, whose publisher has been defunct for more than 60 years) copyright status. I know for a fact it WAS in the public domain around 15-20 years ago, but a current publisher has copyrighted a version of the character and I'd like to know if the original character is still in public domain and can be used by anyone. Can anyone point me in the direction of a resource to find a published work's copyright status? Thanks. 64.222.94.132 (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not intended for this kind of query (they're for working out issues with the article itself)... but as a matter of principle, once the original of something is in the public domain it generally remains there. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Confused about derivative works

I'm a little confused. If you make a derivative work of something in the public domain, is the derivative work automatically also in the public domain? Or, is it up to you to decide whether to release the derivative work into the public domain? SharkD  Talk  22:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

From the article (emphasis added): "A creative work is said to be in the public domain if there are no laws which restrict its use by the public at large." If this doesn't answer your question, consult a source of legal advice, not a Wikipedia talk page. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia talk pages are not intended for this kind of query (they're for working out issues with the article itself)..." If the article didn't have issues these sorts of questions wouldn't need to be asked. SharkD  Talk  01:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. To expect an encyclopedia to give legal advice would be ridiculous. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Getty Images - invalid copyright claim?

I have a recently-published book which covers the early years of aviation. All of the images used are said to come from Getty Images. It claims "Photographs (c) 1997 Getty Images". Since some of the early images, e.g. in the first decades of the 20th century, were taken in the USA and Europe by unknown photographers over 70 years ago, these would presumably be considered as being in the public domain. Is the retrospective Getty Images claim legally enforceable? There is no image attribution appendix in the book either. Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum to pose legal questions; it is a page to discuss problems with the article. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Confusing 2nd paragraph

Maybe it's just me, but the last sentence in the second paragraph does not make sense. I can't correct it because I don't know what it means:

It is estimated that currently, of all the books found in the world's libraries, only about 15% are in the public domain, even though only 10% of all books are still in print; the remaining 75% are books which remain unavailable because they are still under copyright protection

I don't see how the percentages are related. 15% of oranges are bad. 10% of oranges come from South America, the remaining 75% are squashed into Juice. If 15% are in the public domain, then surely the remainder (85%) is under some kind of copyright (that is if the two are mutually exclusive). What are the world's libraries? All public libraries in the world? All printed books on a shelf anywhere in the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.129.28 (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The 75% is referring to books that are in finite supply: they cannot be copied legally (public domain), and legal copies are not being made (in print). The only way you can acquire one is by taking it from another reader. "Unavailable" is a poor word choice, but the math/logic is sound. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Various other countries"

This article says that works of the government of the U.S. and "various other countries" are in the public domain. The source cited is about the U.S. government and is a dead link. Someone above mentioned starting a template for India, so I assume they're one. All Wikipedia could really, really, really, really benefit from having a long, well sourced, well researched section describing every last government on Earth that provides public domain content we can use. Wnt (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I updated the existing link. Don't know about the other info. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have added a sourced intro and have started to move country specific material to the relevant articles on copyright law in these countries. Will also restructure so the article covers the public domain in copyrighted works,patents and trademarks. Will removed much of the unsources text that is in the article. And then it needs expanding.--SasiSasi (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Replacing unsourced text with a line-by-line paraphrase of a single argumentative essay that happens to have been published elsewhere is not an improvement. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to improve the article. Please check wiki policies on reliable sources.--SasiSasi (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

...The "Value of the public domain" section text is overlapped by an image... Lekro (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Didgeridoo photograph

What does this photo and its caption add to the article? I won't remove now, but it seems totally irrelevant. It needs to be either removed or better explicated--140.247.136.41 (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Its an example of an invention that is in the public domain, and was never under IP law. The article needs a lot of extending, if you want to help.--SasiSasi (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright free resources

I just logged on after a long absence and found that my addition of a valuable resource list of copyright free works had been removed from both this article and the Copyright one. Yes it is a link, and yes someone told me Wikipedia is not a collection of links, but when I go to Wikipedia, I expect to find information AND resources. That's what external links are for, no?

Many people are concerned with following copyright laws and using material in their work which will not violate them. We (people) should make it as easy as possible for artists of all kinds to find these copyright free works to encourage creativity and flow of art. Here is the link: http://copyrightfree.blogspot.com/ I will add it once again, please instruct me as to why it would not contribute usefulness to this article. Thank-you Bakerp (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it's just a blog with no authority or expertise behind it. DreamGuy (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Mozart's plot

What does Mozart's plot refer to?

For example, Mozart's plot is public property, and Britney Spears's music is private property.

Could someone explain? Thanks. pgr94 (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright infringement dispute

There has been a dispute over copyright infringement in terms of the close paraphrase policy. I do not believe that the below constitutes copyright infringement based on the criteria outline. The text is based on the sources, is attributed, and summarises or paraphrases what can not be said differently. If anybody thinks that the below is too close to the original and can be said in another way, please suggest changes.--LakeT (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(You can find the passage under discussion in the page history) ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 14:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

For an example (I'm not going to repeat all of your content here), part of your proposed addition says:

The Mona Lisa is in the public domain because it was completed in 1506 before copyright law was established. Owned by the French government the painting hangs in the Louvre Museum which permits photography of its public domain paintings. The Mona Lisa can be freely copied, distributed or displayed, and derivative works such as the L.H.O.O.Q., can be made.

The source you usedPublic domain: how to find & use copyright-free writings, music, art & more by Stephen Fishman says:

The Mona Lisa is of course in the public domain because it was completed in 1506 and was published before the first copyright law came into existence in 1790. ... The Mona Lisa is owned by the French government and hangs in the Louvre Museum in Paris. Unlike many museums, the Louvre permits the public to take photographs of its public domain paintings without advance permission. ... Fortunately, because the Mona Lisa is in public domain, you can copy distribute or display ...

As far as I saw, all of your other sources are followed about as closely as that. That, in my opinion, is sufficiently close to be a derivative work of the original and so infringes copyright and cannot be used. Obviously you disagree, so I have asked another editor who is active in the copyright area to stop by and hopefully they will weigh in. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with VernoWhitney. The language is very similar, and the facts are presented in roughly the same order as the source. The rest of your addition is also like this. I strongly advice you do some "paraphrase training". These two websites give some really good advice: [7] and [8]. Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I am really sorry but I don’t see how the example you give is copyright infringement. The example you give above summarises nearly two pages, and only uses the same language where it is not possible to use any other language. Also, the addition is referenced.

I think you are interpretation of the Wikipedia's policy on paraphrase too harsh. A similarity in itself is not copyright infringement, it would be similar if it stays true to the source. I am not passing this off as my own work or as original. It is a clearly referenced summary of what the source says. Do you really think that summarising this (which is the entire text from which I draw a three sentence summary):

The fact that a work of art is in the public domain can make your life easier in a variety of ways. To illustrate, let’s compare two well-known paintings, one that is in the public domain and one that is not: the Mona Lisa, by Leonardo Da Vinci and American Gothic by Grant Wood.

The Mona Lisa is of course in the public domain because it was completed in 1506 and was published before the first copyright law came into existence in 1790. The famous Grant Wood painting of a farm couple is not in the public domain because it was created in 1930. Its copyright will last at least until 2026. The Mona Lisa is owned by the French government and hangs in the Louvre Museum in Paris. Unlike many museums, the Louvre permits the public to take photographs of its public domain paintings without advance permission. However, such a photo would probably not be of professional quality because you are not allowed to use a flash and the Mona Lisa is kept inside a large glass case. In any event, travelling to Paris for this purpose might be too expensive or inconvenient. Fortunately, because the Mona Lisa is in public domain, you can copy distribute or display an existing professional-quality photograph of the Mona Lisa without obtaining permission from the Louvre Museum or the French government. You may however have to obtain permission from the photographer who took the picture. (two paragraphs on American gothic)

Moreover, because the Mona Lisa is in the public domain, you may create a new derivative work from it without obtaining permission. A derivative work is a work based on or adapted from a pre-existing work. For example, you could create a Mona Lisa sculpture, animated cartoon character or computer icon, or event paint a copy of the Mona Lisa with a beard (Marcel Duchamp did this in a painting called L.H.O.O.Q.) The only limit on how you may use the Mona Lisa is your own imagination. Tens of thousands of derivative works have been created from the Mona Lisa...

Into this:

Some famous artistic works, like the Mona Lisa, or La Gioconda, by Leonardo da Vinci, which was completed in 1506, are in the public domain because they were created before copyright law was established. The Monda Lisa continues to be used as the basis for derivative works such as cartoons. Owned by the French Government the Mona Lisa hangs in the Louvre Museum, Paris, which permits photography of its public domain paintings and the Mona Lisa can be freely used for derivative works such as the L.H.O.O.Q..

Is too close a paraphrase as per wikipedia policy?--LakeT (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it may not be apparent, but "The Mona Lisa continues to be used as the basis for derivative works such as cartoons." is actually from another referenced source (Introduction to intellectual property: theory and practice). So actually the above text was paraphrased in two sentences. I am really sorry but I don’t see how this is too close paraphrasing in the context of an article that is suppose to only include referenced information.--LakeT (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections I will add the text again to the article... --LakeT (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I add the text to the article (slightly altered from the one that is above). It would have been good to have an administrator's opinion, but I am hoping this can be resolved on the talk page. It is not copyright infringement as per wikipolicy, and I dont see how this is too close paraphrasing.--LakeT (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm an administrator who works copyright problems on Wikipedia. VernoWhitney informed me of this discussion and asked my input.

Perhaps you are thinking of it in terms of prosecutable infringement? Your several sentences would almost certainly be de minimis, but Wikipedia is more conservative than US fair use provisions when it comes to using non-free content. This is in part to protect our downstream content users, some of whom are not located in the United States and may be dealing with more restrictive copyright laws than those that govern Wikipedia (for example, Germany). In part to help facilitate their identification (and, where necessary, removal in their reuse) of non-free material, we require that all non-free content be clearly noted, as with quotation marks, per non-free content policy and guideline. Alternatively, we are required by policy to completely rewrite copyrighted content, which means changing both the language and the structure. If you feel you must follow closely to retain the sense of the original, you should attribute inline. While it can't be used for extensive close paraphrasing, material may follow more closely when it is introduced such as "In The Book on the Topic (2010), John Smith said that he felt blah blah", followed by a citation.

As with those who weighed in at the ANI discussion, I agree that earlier versions were problematic for close paraphrasing. I've done some editing of the section as revised for several reasons, including that the PD status of Sherlock Holmes is under dispute (see [9]). Since I could not see the source you used myself, I was not able to rewrite that particular material to reflect the dispute (which, frankly surprised me! I went looking for additional support of your statement and was shocked to discover that this still isn't settled). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I merged the section into one para, I think it works well now. re photos of non public domain, its actually quite unique, most museums dont allow photos of their public domain painting, but I think that might be for another section. I can see some of your sources but I think the way I have edited your first para should be ok.

don’t get me started on the dispute, apart from the lack of good faith and all the rest, the lack of knowledge about copyright law, US or otherwise, is laughable. Particularly given that he took it upon himself to interpret copyright law (who knows what jurisdiction), instead of using Wikipedia policies. Honestly, and I have said that before, in two years of editing Wikipedia I have never come across something like this. It is sad, mainly because I think I was in for the special treatment by VernoWhitney and his sidekicks because I created a new user account, I hate to think how many new users, who wanted to make a contribution, but maybe did not comply with all wikipolicies, gave up on Wikipedai because of VernoWhitney.--LakeT (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

public domain and copyright simultaneously. contradiction?

I came across a software license that says: "[software] is placed in the public domain, but the author retains the copyright." According to the article, it would be a contradiction. Is there any way this sentence can make sense? pgr94 (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It is, indeed, a contradiction. The sentence you quoted makes sense if the writer of the license does not understand the concept of public domain... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.226.100 (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Seconded - that's like saying something is cold, but hot. It's meaningless 86.165.93.80 (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What was probably meant was that the work was freely distributable (in other words, Freeware) but still under copyright. People do confuse freeware, shareware and public domain.--RLent (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

link

Currently, a link is being added to "http://www.publicdomainmaterial.com" This site is problematic for several reasons. First, it appears to be a self-published site. There's no indication that it is hosted by a reliable entity. Second, when I follow the link, I receive the following message from my firewall: "Webroot has blocked access to a potentially threatening site. http://www.publicdomainmaterial.com/ This Web site has exhibited suspicious behavior or is similar to Web sites that are known sources of malware, viruses and spam. Visiting this site may put you at risk or compromise your identity or privacy." That makes this one a no-go at this time, I'm afraid. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The External Links section includes a link to Creative Commons page called "Public Domain Dedication" -- the page has apparently been retired by Creative Commons and is now preceded by a statement saying "Creative Commons has retired this legal tool and does not recommend that it be applied to works."

I would recommend withdrawing that reference, though I've not had a chance to check if it is used earlier in the document. David.daileyatsrudotedu (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed that for the same reason you stated. DreamGuy (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I also removed a link to a site claiming to be a record of works that were public domain. I did a quick search and found a large number of books published before 1923 that were listed as not being public domain, which is an epic fail right off the bat. I therefore removed it as completely useless, as it's basically a big old wiki of information with no standards of reliability. DreamGuy (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

Besides the major problem of a huge section of this article being devoted to a fringe topic (the idea that folklore of cultures is somehow not public domain simply because they don't want it to be), the argument ostensibly made as a direct quote by an American Indian tribe in Washington state has British spellings in it, which is clearly wrong. That suggests the tribes did not have a spokesperson make that statement at all, and that someone else entirely is making that argument on their behalf. Including it as a quote is hugely misleading and should be removed. DreamGuy (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the whole section is based upon a single source of unknown reliability. It looks like POV-pushing of a largely nonnotable opinion by overrepresentation of a the thoughts of a single source, one which by the title is not even primarily focused on the topic. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the "The public domain, traditional knowledge and folklore" section?

It is largely based on this source:

Graber, Christoph Beat; and Mira Burri Nenova (2008). Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions in a digital environment. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 1847209211, 9781847209214. http://www.google.com/books?id=gK6OI0hrANsC&dq=%22public+domain%22+intellectual+property&lr=&as_brr=3&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Could you please explain how this source violates the reliable source policy? Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources

The fact that the title is not primarily focused on the topic means absolutely nothing. Much of the book is on the traditional knowledge and copyright, including the interplay with copyright law and the public domain. That is what the section is about.

• Dr Mira Burri Nenova is senior research fellow at the world trade institute of the University of Berne and a fellow of i-call at the University of Lucerne. She has published numerous books.

• Christoph Beat Graber is Professor of Law and head of i-call at the University of Lucerne. He is member of the Swizz Federal Arbitration Commission for the Exploitation of Author’s Rights and Neighbouring Rights and advises the Swizz Government on international trade and culture. He has also published numerous books.

The source has known reliability and its content is certainly more notable than your humble opinion.--SasiSasi (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a single source with a clear agenda to push that is given far too much attention in this article, therefore pushing that particular POV onto this article, which is a clear violation of {{WP:NPOV]] policy. The fact that a source exists in no way in itself means you can hand over a chunk of an article to that one single source and make a soapbox for that particular viewpoint. DreamGuy (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Little mermaid

The following sources state that Anderson drew on Greek myth, Teutonic and Celtic folklore, and possibly The Arabian Nights when writing the little mermaid.

http://books.google.com/books?id=0LiK9OhKIjYC&pg=PA259&dq=%22little+mermaid%22+folklore+hans+christian+andersen&hl=en&ei=Mlf9TL2ND8PPhAfoosHdCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=%22little%20mermaid%22%20folklore%20hans%20christian%20andersen&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=FYWlfx1FpDwC&pg=PA101&dq=%22little+mermaid%22+folklore+hans+christian+andersen&hl=en&ei=RVb9TOSvAYmFhQfv2birCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCkQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=%22little%20mermaid%22%20folklore%20hans%20christian%20andersen&f=false

Unless there are any objections I will reinstate the picture and add a referenced comment pointing to the folklore sources.--SasiSasi (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

re-instated pic.--SasiSasi (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Creative Commons Zero

Can someone explain or mention in the article what the difference between Public Domain and Creative Commons Zero is?

Why would you want to add a Creative Commons license instead of releasing it into the public domain? 67.188.214.127 (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You might want to use a Creative Commons license instead of PD if you want to make sure that the content is available for reuse in jurisdictions that do not recognize PD author releases. Cf. [10]. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it even possible to release something to the public domain? The article doesn't discuss the idea, says that works aren't public domain until the copyright expires. Horatio (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This depends on the copyright law in the country. The USA has an idea of releasing to the public domain, some software licenses and government materials as mentioned in the article reflect this for instance. Some countries do not allow some (moral) rights to be released Jim Killock (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that public domain allows you to reclaim your rights, while Creative Commons Zero (CC0) does not. So be careful when you plan to release your work under CC0. 123.24.96.104 (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a section Public domain#Dedicating works to the public domain where CC0 is relevant. Horatio (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

DreamGuy deletions

Sorry for saying this, I don't understand these two deletions: removing the OKFN link, and the discussion of traditional knowledge. The first is a useful source of discussions of actual usage, which is fair enough as a secondary source of more detailed information, and does not to my mind require removal under WP:EL. The second is to my knowledge an actual subject of debate, and warrant inclusion as a potential contraction of the public domain. It's not clear to me why this section was removed rather than, for instance, edited or qualified. Jim Killock (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The OKFN links were removed as they are promotional in nature (i.e. spammy) and from my tests of the tools on a previous occasion were worse than useful for real world assistance because they were filled with errors.

Hi, I note you said earlier: “I also removed a link to a site claiming to be a record of works that were public domain. I did a quick search and found a large number of books published before 1923 that were listed as not being public domain, which is an epic fail right off the bat. I therefore removed it as completely useless, as it's basically a big old wiki of information with no standards of reliability. DreamGuy (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)”

I think this explains the confusion. The OKFN database defaults to UK copyright values, which is why you found many USA public domain works which ae still in copyright in the UK / EU. See API to see which calculator you wish to use.Jim Killock (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The other part was removed because it's inclusion was way out of proportion to real world importance of the topic and very slanted toward a viewpoint that is completely unsupported by actual laws in the affected countries. It was basically unsalvageable. DreamGuy (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

See below for some suggestions on this Jim Killock (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Missing content

(Declaration of interest: I work on PD Day and copyright term extension in my day job. They aren't the core concern, which is rights, but my work involves these issues.)

These areas I think are still missing from this article:

Common parlance “public domain”

• In common speech, something in the "public domain" is a fact or, say, government paper, that is known or published. So leaked secrets are said to be "in the public domain". Something should be said about this. In the sense people refer to facts, they are correct of course.

The "copyright ratchet" and reductions to the public domain

Extensions to copyright and patents have restricted the public domain, as has arguably the move to narrower interpretations of copyright limitations. This has a long history, but deserves mention here.

Political, cultural and academic reaction

There has a been a response to this perceived reduction in the public domain, which include

• Creative Commons licensing, open academic publishing and other moves to make knowledge more public and accessible such as the Science Commons. Some puts this information fully in the public domain, others mitigate copyright restrictions
• Academic study and comment, especially the work of James Boyle
• Initiatives such as the Open Knowledge Foundation and group of movements behind Public Domain Day and The Public Domain manifesto; the "open knowledge definition"
• Campaigns against extensions to term in copyright
• Attempts to mitigate the grey areas between copyright and the public domain, such as orphan works, where copyright neither be established nor rejected

Jim Killock (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Re-privatization of the Public Domain

• Public domain materials can be digitised and effectively re-privatised. This is an especial problem in EU law where mere copies can attract copyright. So digital scans and databases of content are given new IP rights preventing the material from falling fully into the public domain, even when the underlying material is out of copyright
• There are also strategies to keep patented goods out of the public domain. Some are detailed IIRC in information Feudalism

Traditional knowledge

It comes in two forms - myths, legends, cultural artefacts that may be sacred; and a debate about patentable information such as traditional cures. They are separate issues but they pose interesting questions for the concept of a public domain and the IP regime.

Further info on Traditional knowledge: wikipedia page and WIPO

I note there is a page detailing these discussions, as well as a hub for discussions of the issue on WIPO’s site: Traditional knowledge: WIPO. They break the discussion into defensive (keeping knowledge in the public domain, such as patentable knowledge utilising active ingredients of traditional medicines) and positive protection, often through sui generis IP rights. Their hub also links to a list of legal instruments and a useful summary of legislation Jim Killock (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Beyond the main Traditional knowledge page, there is also a page discussing the IP responses on wikipedia: Indigenous intellectual property Jim Killock (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

there is also a page on this, Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage project and Intangible cultural heritage Jim Killock (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Release into the public domain

The article is missing any information about deliberate release of copyrightable content into the PD by the author. Even if this is not possible in some (or even most) countries, even a negative information is valuable. Does anyone know details about the situation in different countries?--SiriusB (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Propposal for PD-Nepal

Dear admin, would it be possible to create a PD-Nepal template? Something like: This work is in the public domain in Nepal because its term of copyright has expired. According to the Copyright Act 2002, applied art and photographic work shall be protected until 25 years from the year of preparation. Here is the link to the copyright act: http://www.nepalcopyright.gov.np/pdf/The%20Copyright%20Act.pdf. See Chapter 3, No. 14 (5), Page 8. Karrattul (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi! :D This is the article on public domain, not a Wikipedia project workspace. I would really recommend that you ask for feedback on this at WP:MCQ or Wikipedia talk:Public domain. (More people will see your question at MCQ; at the other page, it may not be noticed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks 07:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karrattul (talk • contribs)

History of Public Domain

Although there was a small section on the early history of public domain, I came across some very early concepts of public domain that I found interesting and wanted to add. I thought that a history section should be added because the section that already existed with some history was a little confusing and disorganized. I added the history section along with some new information. --Nell Flynn (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Public domain films

I've just created this category - please help populate! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Transliteration with Rare Fonts

Many people refer to the [Deseret Alphabet] as the "Deseret Language." The Deseret Alphabet is a phonetic alphabet created in the 19th century to replace the Latin Alphabet in writing English texts. Several English texts using the Deseret Alphabet were published in the 19th century. Some people have transliterated the [Book of Mormon] using the Deseret Alphabet and then claimed a copyright on the transliterated text. Is the transliteration of a Public Domain text using a font which would also seem to be in the public domain really copyrightable? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It could be argued that since transliteration invariably involves a certain amount of editorial judgement ('s' vs. 'z', specific vowel identification, etc.), that the totality of a document of this length, in particular, would be eligible for copyrigh, just as a new tranlation of a work in the public domain is eligible for copyright. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Are photos in Public domain available to be used in applications?

Can I use photos in the public domain in my (free with ads) application? If not - what photos can I use? רן כהן (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

RIP

A new law was passed saying works in the public domain can be re-copyrighted. See: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-re-copyright-decision/ This should be added to the History section. 142.26.194.189 (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Public domain for US governmental employee works

Hello!

I have searched on severl US governmental websites in order to find proof for the omnipresent claim that any work by a US governmentl employee would be in the public domain. Mostly, you can only find that it is "public information". Is "public information" considered to be the same as public domain? Thanks for helping! Cheers, Frederic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.57.87.29 (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Public information is not necessarily the same as public domain, and for some reason copyrights just aren't mentioned much on most government websites. As far as proof goes, you can look at see the actual statutes at 17 USC § 101 and 105, which together establish that "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any" ... "work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties."

I'd recommend you take a look at http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml unless you enjoy reading legal codes though. It lays it out pretty plainly. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Waived rights

The first line of the description says: "The public domain refers to works whose intellectual property rights have expired, been forfeited, or are inapplicable." Shouldn't voluntary waiving of rights be included? —pgimeno (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems that it depends on the laws of the particular country, and that in general the way that you waive rights is by issuing a licence for those rights. See the CC0 discussion above. The article should probably say something about it, if a good reference exists. Horatio (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

So there will still be a difference in principle between a copyrighted work where the rights have been waived as far as legally possible (e.g., using CC0), and a work which is in the public domain, even if in practice there isn't much difference. Horatio (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, the Creative Commons website has a decent explanation, so I added a section Public domain#Dedicating works to the public domain based on that. Horatio (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Corporate-Owned Copyright and Expiration Term

Maybe this is implicit in the existing contents of this article, but I'm not seeing it. The article clearly states that copyright expires upon a specific term following the death of the creator of a particular work. But, what if the creator is only a "person" as our SCOTUS now defines corporations? Specifically, when has the creator of that work "died?" Sure, this might be easily answered in the case of a company which has completely shut its doors and gone totally out of business, but what about companies which are bought up by other companies and exist afterwards only as brands? For example, an advertisement by Kustom Amplification created when Kustom was a stand-alone company. Kustom Amps was sold years and years ago; it exists now only as a brand name, owned by a corporation with no connection to the original organization other than ownership and no input into the creation of the ad in question, and, further, a corporation which doesn't even make the item in the ad or products like it any more.

At what point has Kustom Amps, as the creator of a specific advertisement (indirectly through an agency or directly through in-house marketing employees), died? When does the clock start ticking on that ad's copyright?

The endless cycle of mergers, acquisitions, and resurrection of brand names by subsequent companies would seem, without specific legislation to prevent it, to create a virtually perpetual copyright in certain works which may never expire because the original creator might be practically (as well as literally) immortal.

I'm quite sure with the advertising industry being what it is that this issue has been addressed in the law, but I see no mention of it here. And, I'm in no position to add that information. So, could someone else consider doing so? Mikerrr (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not much discussed in this article, but the US perspective is in Copyright law of the United States#Duration of copyright. Basically, it's important to distinguish between authorship of a work (which does not change) and ownership of the work's copyright (which can change during the life of the copyright).

Copyright ownership initially vests in the author of the work. In the simplest form, that's an ordinary individual human, like you or me. Corporations, or other non-individual entities, such as partnerships, can become owners in one of two ways: by taking an assignment of the copyright (where the copyright owner passes title to the copyright to the other party, by sale, will or gift); or as a "work made for hire" (WMFH).

In the first case (assignment), authorship does not change. The original author remains the author, and copyright terms based on that author's life continue to be determined by that author's life, even though the ownership has changed.

In the second case (work-made-for-hire), the corporate entity is the author. A WMFH can arise in either of two ways (slightly oversimplified here): (a) when a work is created by the entity's employee within the scope of employment; or (b) where the work is commissioned by the entity, and the entity and the other party (call him the "creator" so we don't muddle the "author" legal concept) agree in writing, signed by the creator, that it is a WMFH.

In this second case, the corporate entity is not merely the owner, but is deemed to be the author. And you're right, the whole idea if "life of the author" falls apart here. So WsMFH have a different rule that governs their term: 95 years from first publication, or 120 years from creation, whichever comes first.

The pertinent sections of the US copyright statute here are sections 302(a) (general term rule for individuals); 302(c) (term rule for WMFH); 201 (a)-(b) (initial ownership to author, including WMFH); and 101 (definition of "work made for hire"). TJRC (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Far too much of the page is not about PD

A lot of the actual content of this page is more about copyright, than about Public Domain. that needs to be reduced or shifted where it belongs. --Manorainjan (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Googletalk start

Bocioni8 (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Abdi Ahmad

Ethiopia

"Public Domain" versus "Traditional"

There is little or no discussion in this article that attempts to differentiate between music (or other) works that are considered traditional versus works that are in the public domain.

It seems natural to consider traditional music works as being in the public domain, but not necessarily the other way around. In our opinion, works that transition into the public domain from some form of copyright or some other author/composer control mechanism are not necessarily considered to be traditional from a "hand-me-down over the generations" point-of-view.

We feel that it appropriate to differentiate between public domain works, where the original author/composer is known, and traditional music, where the original author or composer is unknown or where that information is forever lost in the sink hole of time.

In the case of music compositions, we consider it unethical for an artist or label to list the credits for a composition as "Public Domain" without reference to the original, known author/composer when the original author/composer is an established fact.

In summary, we feel that music compositions whose provenance is unknown should be listed as Traditional/Public Domain, reserving the sole use of the term Public Domain for those compositions where the original creator is known to all but no longer under administrative control.

Dennis BrunnenmeyerDbrunnenmeyer (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

But of course, no one at Wikipedia cares about your view on how it should work. What we care about is what is said about these things in sources, specifically sources that Wikipedia defines as reliable NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

We must respect authors, even dead authors of public domain stories

We must consider their reputation if we use a novel they published like Jane Austen or Charles Dickens... it cheapens their life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetechwizard21 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

"use a novel". Clarification needed here. Use it in what way and for what purpose? Dimadick (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Public domain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150929174030/http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/ to https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

US-specific example of public domain

The first paragraph contains: “Examples for works not covered by copyright which are therefore in the public domain, … and all software before 1974”.

This may well have been true in the US but is not true of other countries such as the UK and Italy where, from what I understand, copyright law has covered software for all of the time software has existed. While it wasn't actually tested in case law until later than 1974 (in the 1980s) software was covered, just nobody knew it was for sure. Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable about this history of this could review and tweak this point. EdDavies (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Comic book about the public domain

I found this comic book written by legal experts designed to educate about public domain and fair use. Huggums537 (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

About France

TJRC reverted an edit of mine on this page (mentioning French copyright extensions for authors who "died for France") with the mention: Interesting, if true. Would be okay to add with an actual reference (the text in the <ref> tag is not a reference)).

The text in the <ref> tag I added is indeed not a reference, it is a footnote. Several references about the question, albeit most (but not all) of them in French, can be found in the main article about that question, Mort pour la France, which was linked from the text I added, and of course also in the corresponding French article, fr:Mort pour la France. In particular, the relevant sections of these articles are of course Mort pour la France#Copyright and fr:Mort pour la France#Délai de protection du droit d'auteur.

When editing the page, I thought that the link contained in the phrase some authors who "[[Mort pour la France|died for France]]" during wartime was enough, as it was the obvious place where the appropriate references should be found — and are: four of them in the article in English, and even more in the corresponding article in French, which is of course the authoritative Wikipedia article for something concerning France. TJRC, if you really want it, I can copy all these references from both the English and the French articles and paste them into the text you reverted; but I still believe that it would be needless duplication. — Tonymec (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

In general, an editor should support the statements they add to an article. Some are common-sense, and don't really need support -- see WP:BLUE -- but in general, passages like the above ought to be supported by a citation identifying the reference relied on by the editor.

It's not reasonable to expecting a reader to have to go off into a linked article to find that support. Articles are edited and read independently of one another. A reader interested in copyright law, for example, is not likely to go looking for information on copyright in an article about dying for a country, for example. What's more, if an editor makes such an edit, relying on a reader to go looking elsewhere for that reference, there's no guarantee that the reference will still be in that other article anyway. Articles are edited independently by a lot of editors, there's no telling whether the reference relied on will still be in that article a year, or five year, later.

Now, whether you should "copy all these references from both the English and the French articles and paste them into the text"; let's break that down.

"Copy": You should cite the reference that you relied on in making the edit. Each editor is responsible for the edits they make. If an editor is making an edit to this article, based on something they learn from the content of another article, they should check the reference to confirm that it supports the statement they are making, and then cite to that reference (or another reference, if they are researching independently. However, they should not just copy over a reference blindly, without regard for confirmation that the reference says what its is represented as saying; otherwise you're basically just relying on Wikipedia content itself, and we know that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Copying the wikitext may be the easiest way to port that reference over, but remember that that's just a convenient way of making your edit; it's still your edit.

So: you can use a reference you find in another article and use it as a reference in this article; but you have the obligation to ensure that it really is a reference for the proposition you're citing it for, rather than relying on whatever editor made that other edit in the other article.

"....all these references from both the English and the French articles": generally, you only need to provide references to the extent necessary to support the statements you're adding. If one reliable source does the job, that's all you need, even if the other article used several. And keep in mind that, all things being equal, in English Wikipedia, an English language reference would be preferred to a non-English one. TJRC (talk) 23:24, September 22, 2020‎ (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2021

[cooking tips]

119.30.38.115 (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Public Domain content should not be allowed on Commons...

Something that is Public Domain in the US may be copyrighted abroad... Public Domain vs CC0, CC0 has a fallback license PD does not Slinkyw (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Slinkyw: An interesting suggestion, but this is not the place to discuss it. This is the place to discuss editing the Wikipedia article about public domain. To suggest changes to what Wikimedia accepts, you'll probably do best to start at Commons:Village pump. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

History trivia to add

Diamond Sutra page says it is the first creative work with an explicit public domain dedication. Wqwt (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC) tyu ret gyr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.189.80.224 (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

A Strong Western Bias

Finding this not a title thread in the archives ... . This article is completely biased to Western culture, having the concept originate in Rome and not for example addressing China. Since there's a policy about this noting it. It ought to acknowledge this since what's called being in the public domain really means not being subject to the copyright laws of the Anglosphere and its larger sphere of influence and that is also the current slant of the article except that it implicitly universalizes that by not acknowledging the effective scope. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't know about the 4th sentence, but the rest makes sense. Tagged accordingly. JBchrch talk 20:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

ty. The last sentence refers to the reality of the actual scope of enforcement of copyright law, which is strongly local culture dependent, virtually every country being in one sense or another a signatory to the Berne convention notwithstanding. Public domain being defined by copyright. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 14 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Benji2498.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

crew members during ww2

I have yearbook of uss Columbia are there any living sailors from that time left? 65.162.47.35 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The public domain consists of all the creative work to which no exclusive intellectual property rights apply. Those rights may have expired,[1] been forfeited,[2] expressly waived, or may be inapplicable.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.58.2 (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

List of Public Domain Materials

I feel like we should compile a list of all material that has become or is close to becoming Public Domain.

(161.29.246.205 (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC))

The public domain contains 99.999% of all human output. Some more specific lists exist, like List of animated films in the public domain in the United States and List of films in the public domain in the United States. lethargilistic (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022

92.240.33.207 (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedija.org

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2022

Tassilomoedl (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Under the public domain logo stands "Public domain logo from the Creative Commons Corporation", but Creative Commons isn´t a Corporation.

 Not done: Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2023

I think the phrase "Because those rights have expired, ..." in the third sentence of the article should be changed to "Because no one holds the exclusive rights, ..."

Not all items in public domain are from "the rights having expired"- as the second sentence states there are many ways or reasons content could be in the public domain. 67.220.13.96 (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done ~ Eejit43 (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Newtonian physics

The article includes, as an example. in the United States, items excluded from copyright include the formulae of Newtonian physics. This statement is both unsourced and an awkward example. The writings of Isaac Newton on physics would never have been a consideration for US copyright, as Newton's body had been at rest since more than a half century before the US had copyright laws, and is likely to remain that way. If we need an example of laws of physics and the statement thereof not being subject to US copyright, Einsteinian relativity seems a more appropriate choice. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Commons section need to be updated

Hi, I'm new here so I don't exactly know if this is possible, but I'd like to request a change on commons section of the page. It says that as of 2012, 13 million images were uploaded, would it be possible to post an updated number? 173.177.124.123 (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Software before 1974?

The article states that "...all computer software created before 1974." is excluded from copyright, but the citation attached to that claim seems to say the opposite: "computer programs, to the extent that they embody an author's original creation, are proper subject matter of copyright." Paul Koning (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a pretty dubious claim, and ought to be stricken absent a very clear authority supporting it.

It appears to have been added by a now-blocked user; blocked for, among other things, making claims not backed by a reliable source.

I'm going to strike it. I'm shocked it's sat around for five years undetected until now. Kudos to you for catching it. TJRC (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This talk page

Anyone have a clue why this Talk page is such a target for folks who want to post something random (much as the article itself was before we protected it.) Might there be some external link to here that encourages such efforts? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)