Wikipedia talk:Public domain/Archive 1

First publication

One thing I'm unsure about is whether only the first publication is relevant. What about an image first published in Canada, but subsequently also published in the U.S.? Or does "published" (e.g. in Hirtle's chart) mean "also published in the U.S." and "only published abroad"? Lupo 09:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The relevant first publication is the earliest recognized by the US as enjoying copyright protection, whether foreign or domestic. A caveat to this is that if a work was published both abroad and in the US and would have lapsed into the public domain (e.g. for failure to renew) at a point in time when the copyright interest in the foreign publication was unrecognized by the US, then that work entered into the public domain in the US and can not be retrieved. Dragons flight 16:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Compliments

This article is terrific. The "in short" summaries are invaluable for getting a cursory understanding. Wow. I'm impressed.

Perhaps this could eventually be used to overhaul the Wikipedia:Public domain information page? My list of countries could be a subpage, as could some of the material there. Do you think that would be appropriate? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, moving it over to the Wikipedia namespace is the whole point of it. We could either include your country list, or, as you suggest, have it as a subpage. But I'd like to get it right first. Let it be scrutinized be other people with some experience concerning copyrights; I have advertised it in several places. Note that Wikipedia:Public domain is a lousy redirect; I intend to eventually replace it with this article. Lupo 14:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Laws are PD?

User:Dragons flight has written that "The US Copyright Office has interpreted this as applying to all "edicts of government" both domestic and foreign." Can we have a source for that, please? The extlink given doesn't say anything like that of foreign laws (assuming "foreign laws" means "laws of countries other than the U.S."). I find it hard to believe that the U.S. could or would preempt a foreign government's copyright on their foreign law text. Lupo 09:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The Compendium of Copyright Office Practices (Compendium II) section 206.01 states, "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments." and 206.03 clarifies "Works (other than edicts of government) prepared by officers or employees of any government (except the U.S. Government) including State, local, or foreign governments, are subject to registration if they are otherwise copyrightable." [emphasis mine in both cases].

Techically as an administrative ruling of the copyright office that has never been challenged in court (to my knowledge), this could end up being set aside, but I don't see any reason for Wikipedia to worry about the copyrightablity of foreign laws when the US Government considers them uncopyrightable. Dragons flight 09:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Great find, even if not of too much importance for Wikipedia since we won't have verbatim copies of laws anyway. Could be interesting for WikiSource, though. It's weird, though. Lupo 09:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It's been brought up at Wikisource before. I agree it is weird though. Dragons flight 10:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Some notes...

Although the article hints at this, I'd like to see it stated explicitly - if an author died before January 1, 1935, all of their works are now in the public domain (even if published the day before death) unless they were works-for-hire, which have a 95 year coverage from the date of publication. Also, some works published up even up until the 1960s have entered the public domain because the author(s) or their heirs/assigns failed to renew their copyright protection at the appropriate time. BD2412 T 15:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What about unpublished works eventually published between 1978 and 2002? Copyright renewal is mentioned. Lupo 19:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Or works not published in the U.S.? Or published in the U.S. in 1964 to 1977? (95 years since publication, too!) Lupo 19:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The complicated cases are obviously complicated, but I think it would be good to provide a summary at the top for things that are unambiguously public domain or not. Dragons flight 20:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

But we do: pre-1923, published anywhere, or ineligible for copyright. My point is that "author dead for at least 70 years" is not true for the U.S.! Consider: U.S. Author died December 31, 1934. His last work published in the U.S. the same day. Copyright renewed first time 28 years later: 1962. The work is copyrighted in the U.S. until 95 years after the first publication, i.e., until the end of 2029! Lupo 07:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:PD

Under what circumstances should one use {{PD}}? It currently says

"This image has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright. This applies worldwide."

which I believe is problematic because of the combination "copyright expired" and "applies worldwide". As copyright expiry varies from country to country, it'd be rather difficult to make sure that this claim really holds — probably only for really old works. Maybe a useful guideline might be "published works by authors who died at least 100 years ago" (I think Mexico's 100y p.m.a. term is the longest...), but for those we already have {{PD-old}}. Another possible fix might be to simply remove the "copyright expired" statement from {{PD}}, but for the "ineligible" part, one should either use on of the PD-USGov templates or a country-specific template that explains why the particular work was ineligible for copyright protection anyway (such as {{PD-PolishGov}}. Lupo 10:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"all the images included therein"

Some of the reasoning does not make sense to me. Perhaps it could be worded or explained in another way. For example:

• Image:PaulRobesonByYousufKarsh.jpg, from [1]. Image from 1938, published in Karsh, Y.: Faces of Destiny, Ziff-Davies Publishing, New York 1946, and George G. Harrap, London, 1946. Original copyright registered with the U.S. Copyright Office on December 16, 1946 (Registration Number A9354), renewed December 3, 1974 (Registration Number R592433). See [2]. Therefore, copyright on this work (and all the images included therein) expires in the U.S. only on December 31, 2041.

Especially the reasoning "and all the images included therein" gives the impression that a work confers its copyright status on everything it contains. This is not true for material included in a work when that material was previously registered or previously published elsewhere. If this were true, the copyright on an image would be in effect "renewed" every time it is reused in a new work. --Tabor 17:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. I was assuming that this 1946 publication indeed constituted the first publication of these images. I don't know if they had been published earlier (the Robeson image was taken in 1938); unfortunately, the scanned record doesn't show what exactly is covered by the copyright. Post-1978 entries on other works in the on-line database of the Copyright Office usually contain indications such as "Text only" or "40% of the photographs", although they don't tell which 40% are covered, either. Lupo 07:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What other reasoning does not make sense to you? Lupo 07:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't have time to do thorough research at the moment, but the references here to the restoration of copyright by the URAA don't mention that it contains a very specific exception for copyrights that were at any time owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian in which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or government instrumentality. Such copyrights were not restored by the URAA. The reason this seems siginificant to me is that one of the examples outlined on the page is WWII-era German materials--this exception is quite likely to apply to many of them.

Good point about the Alien Property Custodian (an article in desperate need of improvement!). Note, however, that the APC only managed foreign property in the U.S, it had no say whatsoever over German images elsewhere. (At least that's how I understand [3].) Furthermore, the exception of 17 USC §104(a)(1)(B) and §104(a)(2) applies only to works where the restored copyright would be held by the German government or its agencies, not to works where the copyright owner would be some other entity such as a natural person or a company. The U.S. Copyright Office itself writes that "the legislative history of the URAA is silent on the application and scope of this exception" and then goes on to explain in great detail that it is rather difficult to figure out whether a work would be exempt from copyright restoration under the URAA due to this Alien Property Custodian exemption. Finally, there's an overview over the items under control of the APC: that doesn't look like e.g. any battle photographs were included... Do we really want to muddy the waters even more by mentioning an exception we don't know when and how exactly it applies? Lupo 10:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow the point about "the NARA acknowledges German copyrights". Reading through the linked page, all I see is acknowledgement that copyright may apply to the artworks that are depicted by the photographs. (And many of these artworks are decidedly not German). --Tabor 23:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The point was simply to show that the assumption that there was no copyright on german WWII stuff was wrong. Maybe we can find a better example? Lupo 10:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

On an unrelated stylistic note, I think the exclamation points should be eliminated. --Tabor 23:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead, please! Lupo 10:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

While one would have to check whether its copyright was renewed to be absolutely sure, it's a fairly safe bet that the Karsh Estate did do so.

The degree of certainty here seems to be at odds with footnote 7 of the Hirsh chart you link above which says: A 1961 Copyright Office study found that fewer than 15% of all registered copyrights were renewed. For books, the figure was even lower: 7%. See Barbara Ringer, "Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright" (1960), reprinted in Library of Congress Copyright Office. --Tabor 00:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you examined the copyright renewal records, you can find quite a few renewals by Yousuf Karsh. I bet the percentage for his works is much higher. Just do a search for "Karsh" here: (combined search, then use "more items" to select all of Karsh, Karsh of Ottawa, "Karsh, Estrellita" (his wife), "Karsh, Yousuf", "Karsh, Yousef", and "Karsh, Yousuf 1908-": even since 1978, there are 26 records. Karsh seems to have been someone who kept up on copyright registration... The claim of a "safe bet" was made after having looked at the records and found this, combined with the fact that CameraPress (or their U.S. representative, Retna Ltd.) does claim copyright. Of course, one might try asking Mr. Jerry Fiedler (custodian of the Karsh Estate), there's an e-mail given here. Lupo 10:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial

The section "Do I need to know the copyright and licensing status of the image?" needs to be rewritten; it confuses "published pre-1923" with "created pre-1923" (and the Buffalo Bill example doesn't work for me - no Buffalo Bill image in sight). Also, the "foreign country" advice is patently false: not everything in the PD in some other country is also in the PD in the U.S. Lupo 09:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

US Patent docs are not PD

Under "Government Works," I would like to point out another large class of US govt docs (on uspto.gov) that are published by the US govt but are not "works of" the US govt: patents. They are copyrighted works of the inventors, patent agents or patent attorneys who (perhaps jointly) wrote them. If anyone can cite an authoritative source contrary to this view, please do so. Lupinelawyer 07:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hm. Seems there are contradictory informations given by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. CC-Pubguide states that "patents are published into the public domain", and MPEP 37 CFR ref says that parts of a patent application may be covered by copyright all the same, but the copyright holder must agree to allow anyone to make facsimile reproductions of the copyrighted part. I presume the latter implies "for any purpose, except (obviously) reduplicating the patented thing", but the explicit mention of "facsimile reproduction" makes me think indeed that this permission is limited to faithful copies and precludes creating derivative works. I.e., things like cropping a diagram on a patent application to show only a part of it, or re-coloring it, or any other modification, would be a copyright infringement. That's not public domain, is it? Note that copyrighted parts of a patent application must bear an explicit copyright notice. As to the apparent contradiction, it may be just that I don't fully understand the subtleties of legal jargon. For the time being, I have changed the description on patents on our page, but if it is determined that this indeed is not "public domain", it should be explicitly stated, and the tag {{PD-US-patent}} should be corrected (or removed altogether). Lupo 08:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that. I would not assume that the regs (CFR) and rules (MPEP) have the legal scope they claim. It is axiomatic that regulation of a US agency cannot be read to contradict statutory law (USCode), nor do I believe the agency's interpretation of its own regulations should implicitly override the power of another agency (e.g., the Library of Congress). What stops the United States Copyright Office from issuing a copyright registration on a patent application or even a patent? If I draft a patent application for a client (obviously copyrighted work of non-fiction, authored by me, independent contractor), at what point in the process of submitting it and obtaining an issued patent on the invention does my copyright expire? Note this is different from "client waives its right to enforce" the copyright. Furthermore, if my client's patent lapses, or expires, does my copyright come back? Lupinelawyer 20:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Later: I have tweaked the mention of the USPTO issue, but I'm not sure whether this belongs in "un-creative" (a patent is not un-creative) or better under "government" works, as that seems to be where the confusion arises, or somewhere else. Also, I find nothing in the cited reg that requires any copyright notice -- only that the owner must waive the facsimile right if there is such a notice. This leaves open the questions of whether the general copyright law of "no notice necessary" still applies, and if there is any implied waiver, absent a 1.71(e) statement. Maybe we can find some specific "legislative intent" behind these reg sections (1989 and 1993).Lupinelawyer 18:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected by copyright

The article's intro suggests that works are protected by copyright. If that is so, would it not be extremely anti-social and irresponsible of Wikipedia to promote the usage of public domain works? After all, the public domain works are apparently no longer protected. The definition used by this article suggests works need copyright to protect them.

Of course, you could be a crazy mofo like me who believes that works are burdened by copyright, and that "return" to the public domain is the best thing that could happen to most of them, but I am also the deranged sort who believes that authors aren't the owners of the works they created, but the public, and that the authors are merely owners of copyrights.

Welcome to my world. Try not to cuddle up into a fetal ball and cry "Evil public domain!"--82.92.181.129 16:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Lupo 19:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Scanning images from a book

Perhaps a silly question, but... say there is a book that contains photos which, according to captions, came from the US Army / USMC / etc.. The photos from these sources are supposed to be in public domain. The book, however, has the standard section "no part of this book can be reproduced... etc.". So, what is the status of these photos ? Is it OK to scan them and use in the wikipedia ? Bukvoed 16:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not a silly question at all. If it is clear that the images are actually PD, they cannot be covered by the copyright of the book. In that case, it may be OK to scan the image and use it; however, I would advise giving the precise source ("Image of blah blah, US Army, ..., scanned from book, ISBN blahblah"), and I would advise stongly against scanning all the images from the book: the selection as such may be copyrighted. See Image:Kane Encampment.jpg for an example (in this case of a scan of an old painting). Lupo 19:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

We call such false claims according to MAZZONE: Copyfraud. Try a Google search to find aout the excellent article he has published on this topic. --Historiograf 17:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Historiograf is referring to the paper by Mazzone, Jason: Copyfraud, Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 40, August 21 2005. (Free download at the URL given; last accessed March 7 2006. Lupo 09:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

UK Crown Copyright

It is an important issue worth discussed in the article. My opinion - speaking for de - is that pictures which crwon copyright has expired can be used here because UK copyright law decides that the owner of the copyright is not the creator but the crown. BTW: really great page I have seen today the first time! Greetings frm Germany --Historiograf 17:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have meanwhile added a subsection on Crown copyrights explaining that. Lupo 09:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Databases

It seems to me that the EU Database Directive is just the European Union's implementation of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, which was implemented in the U.S. as the DMCA. Similar to the already mentioned Eckes v. Card Prices Update it protects the database as such, i.e. the selection of items included in the database and the means of extraction. Because the selection is copyrighted, copying all or a substantial part of the items out of a database and using or redistributing it as a whole would be a violation of the copyright on the database under this treaty. However, note that all this does not change anything on the copyright of the individual items. Their copyright exists independent of that of the database. See e.g. Article 5 of the WCT, or §3.2 of the EU directive, or 17 USC 103(b), which had existed even prior to the DMCA. Lupo 12:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that U.S. copyright law does not contain special cases for databases; it appears that these are presumed to be covered by "collections" in 103(b). See also this 1997 report from the U.S. Copyright Office. Lupo 12:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Artwork

I have recently come across cases where reproductions of paintings were uploaded to both the English Wikipedia and the Commons and claimed to be in the public domain because the works were created before 1923, yet the painters died only relatively recently. However the 1923 rule is for things published before that year, not "created". That got me to investigate the matter of copyrights on artworks a bit closer. Is creation really publication for an artwork? What does constitute publication for an artwork? Some preliminary discussions on this can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use#Art, at Michael Snow's talk page, and at my own talk page.

I have now discovered Stephen Fishman's book on the public domain (ISBN 1-4133-0015-4), which has a whole chapter about PD art. I do not know how trustworthy Fishman is; I have found at least one case where he contradicts the U.S. Copyright Office, and he uses mostly old court cases to document his statements (nearly all of those in the art section are from before 1978, and I do not know whether these decisions have been overturned by later cases, or overtaken generally by the new copyright law that came into effect in 1978). In general, the book reads like a "copyright for dummies" guide. I don't mean that in a disparaging way, but I don't like its organization and it's too repetitive for my taste. But it does have some information on artworks.

Note that the question of publication is an entirely U.S. thing. Other countries do not have that "published before 1923" rule; just about anywhere else in the world the only rule for artworks is that the copyright runs until X years p.m.a., where X typically is 70. But since Wikipedia is Florida-based, we do have to take a close look at the U.S. situation.

Now, first off, we have the Berne Convention, §3.3 saying that "the exhibition of a work of art [...] shall not constitute publication", and U.S. law concurs: 17 USC 101 says "A public [...] display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." Furthermore, the U.S. Copyright Office says in its Circular 40 that selling an artwork (including through an auction or gallery, where the work would be exposed to the public) did not constitute publication either. (Emphasis mine.)

According to Fishman, an artwork is published:

1. when copies are published. Copies include photos, prints, lithographs, castings from statues, and so on.

   That also corresponds to Circular 40. According to Fishman, even publishing a photo of a sculpture constitutes publication of the original 3D artwork. He cites Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago, 320 F.Supp. 1303 (ND Ill. 1970). (See also [4].)

2. when it is offered for sale to the general public, such as at an auction.

   I strongly recommend against using this rule, as this is where Fishman flatly contradicts Circular 40 of the U.S. Copyright Office.

3. when it is disseminated to a selected group of people (which may be as small as one person) without restrictions on further distribution to the general public.

   This isn't exactly a useful criterion because it would be exceedingly hard to prove that it applied to a particular work. But note that Circular 40 agrees with that.

4. exhibited to the general public prior to 1978 without prohibition to make copies (e.g. photographs).

   Fishman admits himself that this is next to useless, writing "it would be necessary to review the copying policies of every museum or gallery where it [the artwork] was shown to determine if copying was allowed in any of them". This criterion may at most be useful for artwork permanently installed in public places (because there, people are allowed to take photographs). But since such publicly installed artworks are typically sculptures, i.e. 3D works, Bridgeman v. Corel doesn't apply and we'd simply have to consider the copyright of the photo instead. But see again the "Letter Edged" case [5]. For paintings, this criterion is not very useful, either.

That leaves us with the first criterion. It looks right, and lines up with the opinion expressed here. This link highlights a very special case, but cites an opinion of someone from the U.S. copyright office saying "It [A painting] was first displayed publicly in an exhibition in 2000 and was printed in the catalog. It was then considered published because of the distribution of the catalog." Note that it's not the display at the exhibition that made the artwork "published" but the publication of a reproduction of the work in the exhibition catalog.

The same link also highlights another aspect of artworks: like other works, they are unpublished unless published (even if exhibited!). As an unpublished work, an artwork is copyrighted until 70 years p.m.a., unless it was eventually published between 1978 and 2002 (inclusive), in which case it is copyrighted until the later of 2047 and 70 years p.m.a. (That's another of these idiosyncratic U.S. copyright rules that you don't find anywhere else on the planet.) If published, the work is subject to all the same rules as other published works (if published (not "created"!!!) before 1923 → PD; also copyright renewals, publication without copyright notice).

Based on all this, I would suggest that the general rule for artwork and paintings in particular should be

• Wikipedia considers an artwork to be in the public domain if its author died at least 70 years ago.
• For an artwork of an artist who died more recently to be considered a public domain work the uploader must show that the artwork was a U.S. work, that it was indeed published, and give verifiable details as to when and how this happened. The creation of an artwork or its display to the public are not "publication".

I would advise against using the second part of this rule for non-U.S. artworks, as the TRIPS restored many such copyrights even if they had been lost in the U.S., e.g. due to non-registration, or lack of © notice, and in most other countries, the copyright on an artwork does not depend on publication anyway but just runs to 70 years p.m.a. The first part is also fine for the vast majority of non-U.S. works.

I realise that this rule ignores the "unpublished, then published 1978 - 2002 → copyrighted until at least 2047" special case, but that pathological case appears to be rare.

To show that a U.S. work was indeed published, one could look for printed works that contained reproductions of the work: art prints, art books, a catalog raisonné, exhibition catalogs, and so on. Reasonable effort should be made to find the earliest publication. If any is found from pre-1923, that's good enough and the work is in the public domain, even if the author/creator died less than 70 years ago. Remember, though, that "publication" means "lawful publication", which implies the consent of the author of the original.

I think this rule would also apply on the commons. Note that under this rule, all images in e.g. commons:Category:Georgia O'Keeffe would have to go unless the second part of the rule can be fulfilled. There are similar images on the English Wikipedia, too, see e.g. Stuart Davis. Comments, anyone? Lupo 09:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for working to make the most of a complex, nearly unsalvageable situation. I think "70 years after the death of the author" is the best we can do. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 12:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I should have read Circular 40 more attentively. It does already lay out the criterion I finally found in Fishman's book. :-( Lupo 15:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally, display of a digitized version of an artwork on the web site of the museum holding the artwork most probably also isn't "publication"; it is done under a special exemption from copyright that gives museums and libraries a limited right to make copies. (If I understand this right, this exemption was necessary because coyprights are not tranferred with a physical ("tangible") object. Owning a particular canvas or sculpture doesn't mean that the owner of the artwork also owned the copyright on the work!) See 17 USC 108. Lupo 15:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's the correct reading of 17 USC 108. The section is a bit difficult to wade through, but it deals with copies made for archival purposes or "private study, scholarship, or research". A library or archive can only make one copy at a time (for archival preservation sometimes three), but the circumstances need to indicate that it's being made for one of these purposes. It's supposed to be accompanied by a copyright warning, and very importantly, the copy becomes the property of the user. Even then they can only copy an entire work if copies aren't available at a fair price. Also, the exemption specifically does not apply to a "pictorial, graphic or sculptural work" except for archival purposes only.

What this section does in real life is allow a library in New York to send a graduate student in California a copy of an article from an academic journal in its collection, things like that. I don't think it has any applicability to material on a publicly accessible website. I would guess that a museum displaying a copy of an artwork on its website is as likely to constitute publication as the same museum including a copy in a printed catalog. --Michael Snow 18:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

All right then, do museums also (separately) acquire the copyright when they acquire a canvas? If not, do they have to ask the painter (or his estate) when they do provide on-line galleries or print a catalog? Lupo 07:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what typical industry practices are. It's possible that permission is always requested, or it might be implicit as part of getting your painting exhibited that the gallery or museum can print copies for publicity. Acquiring copyright is not inherently part of acquiring the physical work, but I don't know how common "separate" transactions of that sort are. Keep in mind that copyright is not a single monolithic right, it involves different elements and can potentially be parceled out in many ways.

In a parallel situation, I know that publishing industry contracts often call for the assignment of considerable rights to the publisher, although the author may technically retain copyright. Such things could certainly play out in the world of art as well, but I'm not familiar with the details. --Michael Snow 17:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that separate transactions often happen. For the German law see my printed article in the Kunstchronik 2005 on the Katalogbildfreiheit in the de WP article on this topic (the full text is available in the URECHT mailing list archives, linked in the de WP article) --Historiograf 04:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright status of WTO documents?

The WTO secretariat produces a great number of high-quality reports each year, e.g. trade policy reviews of its Member States. Obviously, such texts would be useful for incorporation in economy-related articles, etc. However, the question of copyright protection of course arises:

• The WTO Documents Online database or the WTO Website makes no mention of copyright at all, as far as I can tell after a quick search.
• The WTO is an intergovernmental organisation, and the WTO secretariat is headquartered in Switzerland. According to the copyright law of Switzerland, "decisions, protocols and reports of authorities and public administrations" are not protected by copyright. (There does not seem to be much in the way of Swiss case law interpreting this provision.)

Any opinions on whether WTO reports are PD enough for Wikipedia? If none are forthcoming, I might just ask them by e-mail. Sandstein 20:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I interprete their copyright notice as allowing non-commercial uses only. Definitely not PD, and not free enough for directly incorporating in Wikipedia. Statistics can be used (bare facts), but make sure the presentation of the statistics is different here, as that presentation (charts etc.) is copyrightable in itself. Lupo 06:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the notice. However, I think the situation is a bit more complicated. The notice reads:

This site and its contents are the copyright of the World Trade Organization.

The WTO encourages the broadest possible dissemination of its information, particularly for educational purposes.

Unrestricted official WTO documents and legal texts are free for public use.

Other material such as official publications can be reproduced for non-commercial purposes provided attribution is given to the WTO and the WTO is informed. Commercial use of materials from the website requires written permission from the WTO.

I read this to mean that a) website content and publications are copyrighted, but b) unrestricted official WTO documents (i.e. anything accessible via WTO Documents Online) are in the public domain (or licenced in an equivalent manner). Sandstein 08:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not confuse "free for public use" with "public domain". They just say you don't have to pay. And what's the difference between an "unrestricted official WTO document" and "other material such as official publications"? Lupo 09:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

On WTO Documents Online: check their "About" page; funnily, they say that "this database does not contain WTO publications"! Lupo 09:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally, let me just point out that the "decisions, protocols and reports of authorities and public administrations" in Swiss copyright law most probably applies to Swiss authorities and public administrations (federal, cantonal, and communal). Trying to apply that to the WTO, an international organization, is a huge stretch. At least a creative interpretation :-) What legal form does the WTO have? Lupo 09:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the "free for public use" phrase is a bit ambiguous. I should probably enquire what exactly they mean by that.

An official WTO document - I have worked with them professionally - is the bureaucratic output of the WTO, including meeting minutes, draft agreements, reports by the various WTO bodies, judicial documents (dispute settlement panel and appellate body reports), etc. They are a huge lot of Word files classed hierarchically (they all have a code beginning with WT, e.g. WT/L/130) that are available to the public via Documents Online. "Other publications" is all the other, glossy stuff - brochures, books etc. These are not in Documents Online.

The WTO is an intergovernmental organisation, and a subject of international law according to its charter (just like, say, the United Nations). By agreement with Switzerland, it is not extraterritorial, but enjoys privileges and immunities essentially equivalent to those of foreign embassies. Still, it is not generally outside the legal order of Switzerland, and I think I could at least make a reasonable case that it qualifies as a "public authority or administration" under Swiss law - the wording isn't specific to Swiss authorities, you know.

Nonetheless, I'm not at all ready yet to treat offical WTO documents as PD... let's hear some more opinions. Sandstein 20:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I know the wording of §5(1) of the Swiss Urheberrechtsgesetz (URG). It says (in German, §5.1c):

Durch das Urheberrecht nicht geschützt sind: ... c. Entscheidungen, Protokolle und Berichte von Behörden und öffentlichen Verwaltungen; ...

Is the WTO a Behörde? Or an öffentliche Verwaltung? I don't think so... (and their protocols are not völkerrechtliche Verträge either). Lupo 07:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

To quote from the PD page:

Under U.S. law, laws themselves and legal rulings also form a special class. All current or formerly binding laws, codes, and regulations produced by government at any level and the public record of any court case are in the public domain. [6] This applies even to the laws enacted in states and municipalities that ordinarily claim copyright over their work. The US Copyright Office has interpreted this as applying to all "edicts of government" both domestic and foreign.

This would appear to apply to at least some substantial subset of the work that the WTO does. The fact that the US considers the edicts of foriegn governments to be public domain is one of the more bizarre aspects of US copyright law, but it would seem to be quite useful here. Dragons flight 21:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The WTO is not a government, and neither is it a court. Lupo 07:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My reading of Swiss copyright law rather tends to come the same conclusion that US law appears to have arrived at, since it is not unreasonable to consider the WTO a Behörde oder öffentliche Verwaltung (authority or public administration) given the ratio legis of the provision, which is to allow the citizens maximum access to official documents that might affect them, and the WTO's work certainly affects many people. The WTO is an institution created by and for governments, after all, and acts as the global regulation authority of international trade. (It also has judicial bodies - its Appellate Body is the de facto World Trade Court.) Interestingly, both US law (which is where the Wikimedia servers are) and Swiss law (which is where the works are created) seem to tend towards, or can be interpreted as, allowing PD access to WTO reports. Sandstein 08:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein. To the extent that treaty obligations give WTO the authority to regulate international commerce, they essentially inherit the mantle of a governing authority. And arguably WTO rulings have even more impact on the lives of Americans then the laws of foreign countries, so this argument doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me. Thus, I consider it reasonable to treat WTO regulations, rulings, and closely associated material as PD. I would however caution not to over do it. If the WTO were to issue a report on, for example, the history of grain prices, that would be unlikely to fit an exemption for binding regulations. Dragons flight 09:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think that is correct. See this edit, and in particular the references given there. If works of the UN are subject to copyright, then why should WTO documents not be? Lupo 20:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Commons

This page doesn't seem to mention Commons. Since Commons is the best place to upload PD media used in a WP article, shouldn't we be pushing it on this page? TheGrappler 19:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is not intended as a "how to" or "where to" guide to uploading images, but an attempt to explain what the "public domain" is and what complications can arise, especially in an international context. The upload form mentions the commons prominently, and so do other of our "upload guide" pages, e.g. Wikipedia:Uploading images. I think, a link to Commons:Licensing suffices here (and is given). Lupo 06:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

National Security Archive

If the NSA archives only work created by the U.S. Government, can I take it for granted that, say, photographs in the Archive are in the public domain and can thus be freely uploaded to Commons? Angr (t • c) 08:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If the NSA only archives works of the U.S. government, these would by by virtue of 17 USC 105 (works of the U.S. government) be in the public domain. Kinda funny question, innit? Lupo 19:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Old book images on a website

Hi, could I get some help regarding this website? Specifically, are the images public domain? (And is there copyfraud going on?) For details, please drop by Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...#Rare Books from the Missouri Botanical Garden Library. Thanks, Melchoir 14:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have answered over there. Lupo 14:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Public domain

This is incorrect: In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world[1] is in the public domain. Other countries are not bound to that 1923 date, though. Complications arise when special cases are considered, such as trying to determine whether a work published later might be in the public domain in the U.S., or when dealing with unpublished works. When a work has not been published in the U.S. but in some other country, that other country's copyright laws also must be taken into account. Re-users of Wikipedia content also might find the explanations here useful.

Copyright in artistic works, such as poetry, music, etc. last for 70 years after the death of the author.[7][8]. The date of publication is irrelevant except in the matter of the copyright on an imprint. Robertsteadman 17:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It is correct (with the caveat given in the footnote, but that concerns the "anywhere in the world" part, not the date). Works published before 1923 are PD in the U.S. Period. You should read on for works published later, or for unpublished works. You're in general better off reading the consolidated law instead of individual acts that modify a bit here and there. Why exactly did you think the statement was wrong? Maybe we could improve the phrasing... Lupo 19:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

HS Yearbook Photos

Are American high school yearbook photos from the 1950's public domain? Usually yearbooks are not copyrighted. Mg rotc2487 01:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mugshot proposed for deletion

Template:Mugshot has been listed for deletion here. You're invited to comment. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Help me verify a copyright template

It exists on the commons as commons:Template:NAUMANN, but the webpage with describes it is in German, which I can't read nearly well enough to understand any of it. Can someone help me verify this tag so we can use it here? --Kevin_b_er 03:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If it was published in 1905, it's in the public domain in America (and probably many other places as well). Looking at the link, I don't know German either, but from Google Translate, I gather that (for example) this page says something to the effect of

From Naumann: A Natural History of the Birds of Central Europe.
The basis of the photo ([something about a library]) is the work of Johann Andreas Naumann, 1796 - 1803. The artist who made the pictures was his son, Johann Friedrich. Digitization: Peter v. Sengbusch.

So it seems very likely that the rationale presented is correct for this book. If you seek further verification, a lot of our users speak German. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Works published in English 1909-1922 outside the US

Could anyone help me clarify the licencing of Image:Hundingsbane.jpg? It appeared in a book published in English in London in 1912 but the author died less than 70 years ago. I don't know whether US copyright formalities were observed or not. Is it in the public domain? This chart doesn't seem to cover the case where a work is published in English outside the US between 1909 and 1922 and not in compliance with US formalities. Haukur 16:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well. It is current practice here to consider pre-1923 works published anywhere in the world as being in the public domain in the U.S. (i.e., {{PD-US}}), but there was a highly disputed decision of the 9th circuit about a book, which seems to imply that for works first published outside of the U.S., only pre-1909 stuff would be PD in the U.S. See the footnote in the article. It may well be that 1909 would be more correct for non-U.S. works, but unless there's visible backup for such a move from the foundation, I'm not going to push for that; I guess we would have to drop quite a lot of 1909-1922 images. Lupo 07:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it looks like the 9th circuit stirred up some trouble on this - but as far as I can gather their decision applied specifically to works written in languages other than English. Haukur 01:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

guideline

Is there a resaon why this page is not marked as a guideline. I noticed that WP:FU is and seeing as this is basically the public domain equivilant it seem that this should be marked as a guideline too. Ydam 01:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

United Nations resolutions are in the public domain

As an admin of English Wikisource, I would like to report that a major discovery at s:Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Draft_United_Nations_Guiding_principles_on_Human_Rights_and_Extreme_Poverty has found that paragraph 2 of ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 leaves United Nations resolutions in the public domain. Please visit the discussion there and think of revising this project page. This is a very important copyright discovery.--Jusjih 17:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Great find! Lupo 09:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Your revision to this Guideline is also very great. This type of public domain is due to the UN giving up the claims. Be glad that the major copyright turmoil at English Wikisource since November 2005 has positively ended.--Jusjih 16:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you put the relevant UN documents on wikisource, please? Especially ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 is a bit hard to find, and not accessible directly if one is behind a firewall. As it's PD-UN, there shouldn't be a copyright problem... :-) Lupo 08:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I will stick them on there tomorrow (Friday) afternoon (European time). There is also an addition to ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 which I shall try to find... Physchim62 (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

wikisource:ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 is now available. Other relevant documents (ST/AI/189, ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.1, ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2/Add.2 and ST/AI/2001/5) will be added on Monday. Physchim62 (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Rule of the shorter term

I have found [9] with a useful table showing whether countries and areas honor the rule of the shorter term. Perhaps we should show more countries and areas? In Asia, I just found and in addition to Japan, Macao also honors the rule of the shorter term while Mainland China does not.--Jusjih 15:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Good find, but instead of listing individual countries, I'd just add the OpenFlix link as an external link, and maybe we can at some point start our own, verified list on commons. Lupo 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have linked from the section "The rule of the shorter term" in this project page to OpenFlix for now unless there is a better to link. A verifiable list should cite relevant legislation such as Article 51 of Decree-Law n.o 43/99/M of Macao as I have found.--Jusjih 08:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term means that even if a work has enter the public domain in its source country, it might remain legally copyrighted in the USA. This Meta link include a proposed petition to the United States Congressmembers to seek law changes that will benefit Wikimedia Commons and its sister projects. Please join the discussion, or even non-American users will be prevented from legally contributing their public domain sources here if still legally copyrighted in the USA, unless they can claim fair use, which is a limited right.--Jusjih 08:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)