Kommunal.az

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Template:PD-US is indefinitely protected from editing as it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.

This is for copyright-expired images in the US. Secretlondon 13:14, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Could an admin please move this template to Category:Images in the public domain in the United States per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/US_vs_U.S.? Thanks, Beland 07:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can someone possibly format this template to look more distinctive, perhaps like Template:PD-old? It doesn't stand out from the text enough as is, IMHO. I would do it, but the page is protected. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 19:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to a reduction in the size of Image:PD-icon.png in this template ? It's sticking out of the box. I think 25px would fit within the box nicely, but I don't know the wikicodes well enough to position it properly. -- PFHLai 08:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:

<noinclude>[[vi:Tiêu bản:PD-US]]</noinclude>

Thanks.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 00:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for a U.S. flag is to point out that the copyright is specific to the U.S.. People have a tendency to upload files to Wikimedia Commons or other Wikipedia projects under the assumtion that PD tag means it is PD everywhere. That is definitely not the case. If you don't object, I'll add this flag to some other commonly used PD-US tags.

I'd also like to add to this template "The work of art is not necessarily Public Domain in other countries.", but I don't want to cludder the template, so please speak if you think this is a bad idea. / Fred-Chess 08:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the pre-1923-in-the-U.S. rule, why don't we add "or was published outside of the United States before July 1909."[2] This would resolve most of the ambiguities which come up with people regarding things which are old enough to be PD-US but are not necessarily published in the US, but are not old enough to fall under one of the PD-Old tags. --Fastfission 17:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some of the cases from that page. What if we add "See the talk page for more cases where this may apply"? howcheng {chat} 07:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is

[[sr:Шаблон:ЈВ-САД]]

Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 10:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Next time try Template:Editprotected and you'll probably get quicker service :) Haukur 10:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. And thanks for the advice, I got that right meantime ;-) --Branislav Jovanovic 06:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can {{PD-Layout}} be used to simplfy this template and harmonize it with other PD-templates? See {{PD-USGov-USDA-NAL}} for an example use 68.39.174.238 13:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but I'm not sure in a quick look-over. A copyable example would be very helpful; I'm leaving the editprotected tag on in case some other admin is able to do this; feel free to remove in a few days if no-one does it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have created a newer version on the photos used. Other that the grey copyright mark and the US flag, i have merged them together (as seen here) this attracts more attention than just the flag and the mark. Cocoaguy *talk*| (Edits) 23:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea but I see two shortcomings: The "no symbol" is not as visible as before, and that is a very important part of the template. As-is, the template is easy to adapt to works which are PD under other countries' laws. A merged symbol would require custom art for each new template, and many countries flags would not adapt well to this type of merge. —Dgies^t c 18:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might also add that that is a GIF and should be an SVG image. 68.39.174.238 20:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems no consensus for this change. I've thus removed the edit request tag for now. --Ligulem 16:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are these only public domain in the US, or are they public domain everywhere because they were originally published in the US? --Random832 00:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the image was first published in the U.S. (and not elsewhere simultaneously) before 1923, then it's PD everywhere. If the image was first published outside the U.S. before 1923, it's still considered PD in the U.S., but it's considered copyrighted elsewhere. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily; Germany, Canada and Mexico and several other nations don't have the rule of the shorter term with respect to US works (or in general for some of those nations), and hence just because it was first published in the US prior to 1923 doesn't mean that it's PD everywhere.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of this talk page, it states several cases where this tag could be applied. These include works first published in the U.S. before 1963 without a copyright notice, etc. But the text of the template itself says that the work was first published before 1923. Are there any objections to me changing the text of this tag to cover all cases mentioned at the top of this page? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Please change

In most cases, this means that it was first published in the United States prior to January 1, 1923

to

In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1923.

As noted at the top of this page, works published outside the United States before 1923 are also in the public domain. Commons:Template:PD-US does not include the phrase "in the United States" in the second sentence and neither should this template. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, this tag is used both for US works published before 1923, which are public domain in most of the world, and for non-US works, some of which are still copyrighted almost everywhere except the US. This causes two problems:

1. Someone who wants to reprint Wikipedia articles outside the US cannot tell which images are public domain except by individually examining each one.
2. The fact that both the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons have a {{PD-US}} tag misleads people into assuming that anything tagged {{PD-US}} here can be moved there. Some of these images are not allowed on Commons, and are subject to deletion there—specifically, non-US works published before 1923 whose creators died less than 70 years ago. An image could easily wind up transwikied to Commons, deleted here as redundant, and then deleted on Commons as a copyright violation—wasting everyone's time and losing an image that was perfectly OK here.

To solve these problems, we need either two different tags or else a parameter specifying the country of origin. Two tags would probably be simpler.—Celithemis 22:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say we go for six different tags - representing the six cases at the top. Haukur 13:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tag for the fifth case would contain a warning that the image might not be suitable for the Commons. Haukur 14:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea, but see one problem: we will have a lot of images that are difficult to choose a tag for. Something painted in 1900 by an Italian artist who died in 1920, for example: it could be case #5, #6, or even #1, depending on when and where it was first published, but one way or another it's public domain unless, by some fluke, its first publication was in the US after 1922. How would we handle cases like this? —Celithemis 22:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point I hadn't thought of. In your example the painting could actually also (though it is unlikely) fit cases #2, #3 or #4. Perhaps we could use #6 as a sort of default for cases like that. But in theory we'd always need to establish date of (first) publication to ensure it didn't fall into the 1978-2002 danger zone. Maybe we could deal with some real examples to get a feel for how we'd like image description pages to look. Here's an image I uploaded with a prototype template: Image:Sjoundi dagur i Paradis.jpg. Does it have enough information to establish PD status? Does it have too much information? Is it hopelessly confusing? Haukur 23:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started looking through some categories of (supposedly) PD images and they are generally very poorly documented indeed. Take the images in Haystacks (Monet) for example. Haukur 23:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. Paintings in particular are in a dreadful state, since the old language of Wikipedia:Public domain#Artworks led people to slap on a {{PD-art}} or {{PD-art-life-70}} tag and leave it at that. Very, very few have the publication history that would be needed to be completely sure they're public domain in the US. That's why I think we're going to have to focus on images that are truly likely to be copyright violations, at least for now, rather than trying to pin down which specific criterion every image on Wikipedia fits. Your suggestion of using a default tag for creators whose works were PD in their home country by 1996 sounds like a good start. —Celithemis 00:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. We could start slapping "nosource" or even "nopublicationdate" templates on all sorts of images which look like they probably are in the public domain even if their image description pages don't really prove it. That may not be so productive. I think those Monet haystacks are an interesting example. Monet died in 1926 so he probably had some of his copyrights restored by the URAA. On the other hand it seems likely that at least some of those wildly popular haystack paintings were published before 1923. I'm not keen to personally do the research needed to verify that. Haukur 08:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not either, though that's a good example of one that really should be investigated (in someone's copious free time).

My priority right now is to do something about distinguishing US and non-US works that are tagged PD-US, because I'm really getting sick of having to watch images that I've uploaded to make sure someone doesn't transwiki them to Commons. I just now had to ask the same person not to do that for a second time. It's too confusing to have {{PD-US}} templates on en.wiki and Commons that don't mean the same thing. —Celithemis 00:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know what you mean. Let's make a specific tag for pre-1923 works published abroad and attach a prominent warning not to transfer images tagged with it to Commons. Haukur 23:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Template:PD-art-life-70, though it is actually carefully worded and not wrong, is rather misleading. It's very easy to take it to mean that the US is a 70 p.m.a. country. Haukur 08:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That might be better used as an auxiliary tag, which would have to be used in conjunction with another tag that explains how the image is public domain in the US. —Celithemis 00:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Every image should have a tag explaining why the image is in the public domain in the United States. Everything else is icing on the cake. Haukur 23:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have created {{Do not move to Commons}}. Feel free to tweak it (including adding a category if necessary). -Nard 14:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We actually already have templates for cases #3 and #4. See Template:PD-Pre1978 and Template:PD-US-not renewed. Haukur 11:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first of those templates is quite wrong, of course. The "irrevocably" part applies only to US works - others are subject to the URAA-1996 magic fairy dust of copyright restoration. Haukur 11:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put in an edit request for that one. It looks like it is only used on a handful of images anyway. —Celithemis 00:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I think I'll add a US flag to it to bring it in line with its brethren. Haukur 23:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a specific tag for the case of works published abroad before 1923, Template:PD-US-1923-abroad, and applied it to some images. Now we have specific tags for cases #3-#6. I think case #2 is quite rare, I'm not aware of any images that fall under it (though I'm sure there are some). Case #1 is probably the most common by far and the present tag already mentions it so I think there's no rush to create a separate template for it (though I wouldn't oppose anyone who wanted to do so). Haukur 23:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, and have already used it. Just two thoughts:

• Maybe the filename should use the date 1922, to make it clearer that works published in 1923 are not included?
• I think we should be using this as a default in any case where we're not 100% sure that the first publication was U.S. There are probably a lot of images for which we know about one publication before 1923, but it's unclear whether it's the first. Maybe the language of the tag should reflect this.

As for case #2, I agree we can ignore it for now. There must be images out there that it applies to -- previously unpublished drawings that have been uploaded to museum websites in the last few years, for instance -- but it's going to be very hard to prove. —Celithemis 01:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right that 1922 would be better in the name. Now would be a good time to do any renaming while the template is only on a handful of images. As for case #2 it may not be that hard to prove in all cases. There must be post-2002 art books which tout something as previously unseen and unpublished. I was looking at a book of 19th century French photographs the other day and it noted that some of the pictures had never before been published (though, infuriatingly, it didn't say which ones). As for case #1 I'm thinking maybe we should start a specific template for it after all. I've been looking through the categories of images tagged with PD-US and most of them are severely underdocumented, often making no case for why the template should apply. Moving those which do clearly document a pre-1923 US publication date to a specific template would make things at least slightly clearer. Haukur 09:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't like about that is that the templates called "PD-US" here and on Commons will cover different things. That's already true of the PD-Old tags, though. Maybe it's just a lost cause trying to keep them in sync. If we do that, I think this tag should clearly state that the image may not be appropriate for Commons.

As for that pesky case #2, eh. No harm in making the template and seeing if anyone uses it. I vaguely remember reading about a case where someone's photos were embargoed by their estate until 2010, so that's another way it could happen. —Celithemis 07:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons licencing situation is an even bigger mess than the one over here. I mean, just take a look at the upload screen. It tells you right out that a file is in the public domain if "author died more than 70 years ago". It also tells you to give a "Date of creation or publication if the former is unknown". In reality the 70 pma is not a sufficient criterion and a year of publication should be provided whether a year of creation is given or not. If you start uploading to Commons you're being fed wrong information right off the bat.

Sure, we can make a case #2 template for sakes of completeness. Haukur 10:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a whole other can of worms. Commons's problem is that other language Wikipedias want to follow the copyright laws of the countries they serve, but the servers are all in the U.S. They asked the Foundation about this a while ago and got back a "no comment". There was talk of adding tags that say "this image is not public domain in the U.S.", but nothing has been done, and perhaps it never will be, since that basically says "yes, we are aware that we are violating the law".

The whole project of building an archive of public domain images for both life+70 countries and the US is fairly quixotic, and English Wikipedia would be well advised to host all its own public domain images instead, but I doubt that will happen. —Celithemis 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, this template will need to be split into an absolute minimum of two templates, and perhaps many more than that in the long term. To begin with, I give as an example the wildly erroneous statement in the template: "In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1923 (see the template documentation for more cases)." Firstly, publishing between 1923 and 1963 increased as much as fifty-fold in that time period^{[citation needed]}. Secondly, over 90% of the copyrights originally registered with the U.S. Copyright Office between 1923 and 1963 were not renewed prior to the passing of 28 years from original date of publication as would be required to extend copyright beyond 28 years after the original publication date.^{[citation needed]} Thirdly, as much as 99%, perhaps more, of the total material published in the US between 1923 and 1963 were not renewed prior to the elapsing of the 28-year initial copyright period (assuming, of course, the formalities were in place in the first place).^{[weasel words][citation needed]}. As a practical matter, this arguably leaves some 99%-or-so of the U.S.-public domain material in something of a black hole on Wikpedia. Given that no one has the right to confer anything in the public domain over to a "free license" such that it might not fall into the massive WP:Black hole, I must say that at present this discussion is arguably in need of Expert Help. ... Kenosis 02:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template documentation does discuss the cases of images whose copyright was never registered or not renewed, and as of now it points to specific tags that can be used for them. So I don't see the "black hole" you're referring to. I do see your point that the word "most" could be misleading -- I had taken it as meaning "most images tagged PD-US on Wikipedia", rather than "most public domain images that exist". Maybe it could be changed to "many" for now. But I think we are trying to move toward a setup in which all images tagged with this specific template will fall under the pre-1923 criterion. —Celithemis 03:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give a day, week, month, year... to figure out the rough numbers. If WP is in fact preventing itself from using over 99%^{[citation needed]} of the material presently in the public domain in the US, then, perhaps, it has (1) some growth to undergo, or (2) some apologizing to do to its past and present donors, be those donors financial or otherwise. ... Kenosis 04:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how Wikipedia is preventing itself from using any material that is in the public domain. We can use material that has lost its copyright due to nonregistration or nonrenewal. As far as I know, we have always been able to. —Celithemis 04:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Template:PD-US and its family for works of non-USA-authors Alex Spade 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Please replace the contents of this template with:

<!-- License: Public license, transcluded from Template:PD-US -->
<div class="boilerplate" style="width:80%; clear:both; margin:0.5em auto; background-color:#f7f8ff; border:2px solid #8888aa;" id="imageLicense">
<div style="float:left" id="imageLicenseIcon">[[Image:PD-icon.svg|50px|Public license]][[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|60px]]</div>
<div style="text-align:center;margin-left:68px" id="imageLicenseText">
This image is in the '''[[public domain]]''' in the [[United States]]. In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1923 (see [[Template:PD-US|the template documentation]] for more cases). Other jurisdictions may have other rules, and this image '''might not''' be in the public domain outside the United States. See [[Wikipedia:Public domain]] and [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] for more details.
</div></div>{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Image|[[Category:Images in the public domain in the United States|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}<noinclude>
{{template doc}}
<!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! -->
</noinclude>

This will bring the template into conformance with WP:DOC and move the template documentation off the talk page. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Haukur 22:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a protected verbatim copy of this template at {{pd-us}} for us lazy types unable to reach the shift key. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Replace the source code with:

<div class="boilerplate" style="margin:0 auto;width:80%; background-color:#f7f8ff;border:2px solid #8888aa; padding:4px;font-size:85%;min-height:64px;vertical-align:center" id="imageLicense">

<div style="float:right">[[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|70px|USA]]</div>
<div style="float:left" id="imageLicenseIcon">[[Image:PD-icon.svg|64px|Public domain]]</div>
<div style="text-align:center;margin-left:68px" id="imageLicenseText">
This image is in the '''[[public domain]]''' in the [[United States]]. In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1923 (see [[Template:PD-US|the template documentation]] for more cases). Other jurisdictions may have other rules, and this image '''might not''' be in the public domain outside the United States. See [[Wikipedia:Public domain]] and [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] for more details.
</div></div>{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Image|[[Category:Images in the public domain in the United States|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}<noinclude>
{{documentation}}
<!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! -->
</noinclude>

which produces the template below; the American flag is positioned to the right and is more visually appealing -- penubag  (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image is in the public domain in the United States. In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1923 (see the template documentation for more cases). Other jurisdictions may have other rules, and this image might not be in the public domain outside the United States. See Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details.

{{documentation}}

 Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish all the image licence tags could conform to a single style, ideally a new colour of {{ambox}}. {{ambox}} could be copied to a new name (e.g. {{imbox}} (image message box) and given a new colour. In my opinion, the image pages all look so cluttered and jumbled and it's really hard to gauge just from looking where all the information is. Trouble is - it might be being too bold - everyone is affected. It would make such a difference in my opinion though. What are all your thoughts? Drum guy (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Imbox}} is in work as we speak, but it's intended for maintenance tags, not license tags. Personally I'd like to standardize en Wikipedia license tags with Commons license tag as much as possible. Kelly ^hi! 02:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does one know where a work was published? I would like to upload photographs I am certain were created before 1923, since the subject died before then, but I have no idea when the image was first published. Any advice? Thanks. —johndburger 02:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find out the exact source of the photos. Were they published in a newspaper? Who was the photographer, and have they also died? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so basically most "old" photos found on the net are useless to us—too bad. I suspect this due diligence has not, in fact, been done for many of the images tagged with this template, since the few that I randomly looked at make no mention of the author or original publication. Or am I being too cynical? —johndburger 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Wouldn't it be better if {{pd-us}} was just a redirect rather than a copy of the PD-US template?

#REDIRECT [[Template:PD-US]]

-- WOSlinker (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it has a high number of transclusions, and the redirect will show up on the transclusion. It's better to keep it as it is. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I keep finding pages with pictures that were painted before 1923 (see a series of Matisse's paintings at User:Modernist for instance) claiming public domain... As i understand it, however, the law only relates to works that were mass produced. ie photos in magazines, books, newspapers, records etc. The law does not apply to unique items such as paintings. Is there a lawyer up on US copyright law who could comment? This seems to be a practice that's spreading.Franciselliott (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The law applies to when a work was "published". A painting is legally published when it is put on display for public consumption, or when copies are made and distributed. So if a painting was put up in a gallery before 1923, then it's PD. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this was in the USA only, surely? In France copyright subsists until (now) 70 years after the author's death, and if the work was not "published" in the US before 1923, the rules of the country of first publication will normally apply. Plus if only copies are published - eg a photo in a book - only that copy/photo will be PD, not the original. I think. A lawyer should confirm. Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those images were uploaded (not by me) with that understanding..that they were published and/or publically displayed before 1923..not everything, but those images that were specifically discussed, as far as I know they are ok, which was why we used them in various articles and why I also have them on my user page...Modernist (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it means (I'm not a lawyer) that the work of art itself is in the public domain if it was shown in the US or it was reproduced in a US publication before 1923. @ Johnbod: The entire work of art is in the public domain, not simply the reproduction, and while again I am not a lawyer, I derive this from Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.: if the reproductions do not have sufficient originality to be copyrighted, then their PD status is inextricable from that of the artwork. Besides, it is so difficult to research the publication history of an artwork (see Tyrenius's excellent work on File_talk:Chicks-from-avignon.jpg#2008 renewal of discussion) that I believe we should assume works made before 1923 are PDUS, and deal with individual cases as they are challenged by the "copyright holder"- if it is hard to prove then it is equally hard to disprove, within reasonable doubt. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very dubious your Bridgeman point is correct; anyway with the point below it may be irrelevant. If it were true there would be effectively no copyright at all for 2-d works in the US, no? Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and if you are correct, then there is no use of PDUS at all unless we can track down a scan of the exact printing of the image that constituted its publication. For Les Demoiselles that would be this tiny black and white reproduction. I make no pretension to being correct, and from rereading my statement I see how you could interpret it to state that reproductions of copyrighted works are PDUS. That was not at all my meaning; I simply followed this logic: if "A: If a printed reproduction of a 2d work of art was published in the US before 1923, that reproduction is in the public domain within the US." and "B: A reproduction of a 2d work of art does not have sufficient originality to be copyrighted." are true, then "C: Any reproduction of a 2d work of art that was reproduced before 1923 in the US will have the same copyright status as the reproduction that was produced before 1923" would seem to follow. If the reproduction does not have sufficient originality to be copyrighted in the first place, then its publication in the US before 1923 would not release merely the reproduction into the public domain in the US- you cannot take away from it what it never had, ie the protection of copyright. Therefore it is the work of art itself that passes into the public domain. That was my reasoning, in any event. Once again I make no claim to it being right, but simply wish not to be misunderstood. I stand corrected re publication vs. exhibition, but this is a different issue entirely.

The consequences of your statement ("only that copy/photo will be PD, not the original") being absolutely true are worrisome; I can scarcely imagine PDUS being claimed at all for works from another country of origin, and the quality of images so procured for WP would suffer greatly, as the Les Demoiselles reproduction evidences. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Display for public consumption does not constitute "publication". Per 101. Definitions of the US Copyright Law,

"'Publication' is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.

To perform or display a work 'publicly' means —

(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times."

This is why the White House Collections has claimed copyright for the painted portraits of US Presidents, which (with the exception of Gilbert Stuart's George Washington) were first published in Presidents of the United States of America (1962), and has been continually renewed with every new edition. There are several Presidential portraits on Commons that should be deleted. Jappalang (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the vast majority of {{PD-Old}} and {{PD-US}} photographs are mistagged, due to a lack of information about who created a photograph or when it was first published. I'm not sure whether these should be deleted or not, and I've opened an RFC here. Opinions and ideas would be most welcome -- just go to the RFC and comment there. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 20:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to have a definite answer to this crucial question, which emerged as a side issue to the discussion on the definition of "published". (see the discussion two sections previous to this one). Here's the relevant discussion, you can see more above:

• Johnbod:...if only copies are published - eg a photo in a book - only that copy/photo will be PD, not the original. I think. A lawyer should confirm.
  
• Me:...if the reproductions do not have sufficient originality to be copyrighted, then their PD status is inextricable from that of the artwork.
  
• Johnbod:...If it were true there would be effectively no copyright at all for 2-d works in the US, no?
  
• Me:...That was not at all my meaning; I simply followed this logic: if "A: If a printed reproduction of a 2d work of art was published in the US before 1923, that reproduction is in the public domain within the US." and "B: A reproduction of a 2d work of art does not have sufficient originality to be copyrighted." are true, then "C: Any reproduction of a 2d work of art that was reproduced before 1923 in the US will have the same copyright status as the reproduction that was produced before 1923" would seem to follow. If the reproduction does not have sufficient originality to be copyrighted in the first place, then its publication in the US before 1923 would not release merely the reproduction into the public domain in the US- you cannot take away from it what it never had, ie the protection of copyright. Therefore it is the work of art itself that passes into the public domain.(as an addendum: How can you publish an original work of art anyway, without copying it? It is impossible. If we apply Johnbod's logic to PD worldwide, then only reproductions made more than 70 years ago could be used to represent PD works, which would be contra WP policy that follows Bridgeman. I see no reason why our treatment of PDUS should not be analogous)
  Thanks, Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Please unlink United States, which is a well-known term, per WP:OVERLINK#What generally should not be linked in the MoS. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem helpful to add a line, if not a template, for previously unpublished work. Cornell says unpublished work enters the public domain 70 years after the death of the author (photographer too?) and anonymous work 120 years after the work was created. This covers a huge volume of family and archived photos, diaries, etc. Wikipedians can find this rule by clicking through to the "complete list" reference at Cornell, but it would be clearer to note the dichotomy between published and unpublished in the main text.

The line or template might note that at least in the US, previously unpublished work (a) enters the public domain because of the "unpublished" rules, and (b) stays in the public domain even if it is now published, because works published in the US after 2002 enter the public domain "70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first." (same Cornell reference). Numbersinstitute (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an opposite of this template?

In other words, do we have a template that indicates a work is free in the country of origin but not the United States? Ixfd64 (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ixfd64: I guess it depends on the reason, if it's due to URAA restoration, then you can use {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} or something like {{PD-UK|restored}} accompanied with the appropriate non-free use tag like {{Non-free album cover}}. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 22:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylsss: I'm thinking about situations where the country of origin has a higher threshold of originality than the United States. Something like the opposite of {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} but for foreign countries. It seems we don't have a {{PD-x}} template for each country or the ability to specify that the work is in public domain because it's too simple to be copyrighted. Or do we just stick to fair-use templates in these cases? Ixfd64 (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean there's Category:Public domain copyright templates by country, but I don't think you can specify that it's because of ToO. That said, the situation that there would be something that is original enough in the US but not in the source country seems very rare as the US threshold is already quite high; the source country's threshold would have to be even higher, so that it would be below its threshold but above the US threshold. AFAIK there isn't any country which has a threshold of originality that is significantly higher than in the US apart from Brazil (c:com:TOO Brazil). Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 01:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]