Wikipedia talk:Public domain/Archive 2008

Archive 2005

Archive 2006

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

The copyright status of the Edison Records sound recordings

To some, the presumption seems to be that the Edison Records recordings are out of copyright, or that copyright effectively does not apply in the case of the Edison Records recordings. In particular, there is the {{PD-Edison_Records}} template on the Wikimedia Commons site, which mentions the Edison Records assets as being held by the National Park Service. In addition, the Survey of Reissues of U.S. Recordings report (August 2005) from the National Recording Preservation Board mentions the recordings from Thomas A. Edison's companies, and it is said that the U.S. government eventually received the legal title to the recordings.

Near the end of December 2007, the National Park Service (which is in charge of the Edison National Historic Site) was contacted regarding the copyright status of the Edison Records sound recordings. According to the museum curator Jerry Fabris, the simple answer is that the copyright status of the recordings is unclear. In particular, the donation of the copyrights to the American people by Edison is unfortunately "most likely a myth, unsubstantiated by any official documentation", though the belief of such a donation often comes up. In the curator's view, the Edison Records recordings could be "orphaned works" with regard to copyrights. On the audio duplication policy page for the Edison National Historic Site, it is stated that "The National Park Service does not presume that all Edison recordings are in the public domain." In any case, the Edison National Historic Site offers no-cost digital downloads of certain Edison recordings, as well as a list of Web sites for finding historical recordings. - Elegie (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The practical difference is minuscule, though. With a clear statement from a source we can trust (and I presume an NPS museum curator is such a source) that these are "orphan works", we may just as well treat them as PD-US. "Orphan work" means that although there may technically still be copyrights, the rights holders are unknown and could not be located even through diligent research. Given that these recordings are held by a US governmental agency, I would think that our treating them as PD-US, albeit maybe technically not entirely correct, shouldn't cause any problems for anyone. Lupo 12:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Commons template is almost certainly wrong, but the confusion arises because these are sound recordings which were fixed before 1972-02-15. As such, they are subject to state copyright, not federal copyright (17 U.S.C. 301(c)). I agree that we are risking very little by hosting them, but their copyright status in general is unclear. Physchim62 (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

From what was said in the reply, it was the belief of the curator that the recordings are "orphaned works." At the same time, the curator said that they were not qualified to give legal advice (which makes sense.) - Elegie (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Library of Congress is probably the better source for this, because they have a lot more experience with copyright issues.--Pharos (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Required PD style pointer

Whether there is a required style for reused PD text is being asked at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Style guideline for PD sourced content. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Public Domain Search

I searched high and low for a public domain search engine, and couldn't find a half-decent one, so I've created one: Appropedia:Appropedia's Public Domain Search.

IMO this would be a very valuable addition to this page, but since it's my work, I'll let someone else add it.

Btw, it's a work in progress, returns mostly public domain content, and all help would be very much appreciated! So far it's just US federal govt content plus Project Gutenberg. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

US Copyright of unpublished, anonymous works from 1888-1897

Several people have told me that unpublished, anonymous works created prior to 1896 expired after 100 years, under the rules in effect before 1996. I don't have copies of the 1978 and 1989 copyright laws to confirm or deny this. This is relevant to the newly published July 1888 Helen Keller photograph. Can anyone provide citations to prove this one way or the other? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a cite, but you have to unwind it a little: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html. Section 303(a) is the starting point:

(a) Copyright in a work created before January 1, 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for the term provided by section 302. In no case, however, shall the term of copyright in such a work expire before December 31, 2002; and, if the work is published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright shall not expire before December 31, 2047.

In the Helen Keller photo case, the photo was not published prior to 12/31/2002, so the only part we have to worry about is "endures for the term provided by section 302." Here's section 302(c), the pertinent part of section 302, in its present form:

In the case of an anonymous work... the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first.

However, this is what this section looked like after it was amended in 1998, not as it was when it took effect in 1978, and most importantly, not as it was in effect in 1988 (for reasons I'll explain). The 1998 amendment is noted in footnote 4:

In 1998, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act amended section 302 by substituting “70” for “fifty,” “95” for “seventy-five,” and “120” for “one hundred” each place they appeared. Pub. L. No. 105-298, 112 Stat. 2827. This change was effective October 27, 1998. Id.

So from 1978-1997, this clause read (changed text in bold):

In the case of an anonymous work... the copyright endures for a term of seventy-five years from the year of its first publication, or a term of one hundred years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first.

The consequence of this is that any anonymous work that was created 1897 or earlier, and not published 2002 or earlier (to get that section 303 boost to 2047), would have come up for expiration 100 years after creation, i.e. by 1997 at the latest; before the 1998 term extension law was enacted. In the case of the Keller photo, the copyright expired December 31, 1988, 100 years after it was created. The law was amended 10 years later to change the term, but nothing in that law took works out of the public domain and reinstated any copyrights.

The above is discussing anonymous works. This applies just as much to works-made-for-hire and to pseudonymous works, because those are also within the scope of section 302(c). A similar, but not quite the same, analysis applies to works where the author is a known human being, which are covered by 302(a): in 1998, the 302(a) term changed from life+50 to life+70. So basically we look to whether the author died in 1947 or earlier (in which case the life+50 term applies, because the work would expire at the latest in 1997); or in 1948 or later (in which case the copyright would have still been in the life+50 term as of 1998, and thus still in force to obtain the benefit of the 20-year extension).TJRC (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Recommended changes to Unpublished Works section

In light of the above discussion, I recommend the following changes or any other wording that would convey the same information:

• Re-title the section to Unpublished and belatedly published works
• Add the following at the beginning of the section:

An unpublished work is a work that has never been published. A belatedly published work is a work that was published long after it was created. Unpublished and belatedly published works may have copyrights that expired or will expire earlier or later than they would have if they were published and copyrighted at the time of creation. Registered works may be unpublished but for the purposes of copyright they are generally treated as if they were published at the time of registration.

• Add the following at the end:

Anonymous and pseudonymous works, and works for which the date of the author's death generally enter the public domain according to this table:

• Published prior to 2003: See rules outlined elsewhere.
• Created before 1898: Entered the public domain on or before 1/1/1998.
• Created in 1898 or later: January 1 of the year following the 120th anniversary of the work's creation.

Works with known authors generally enter the public domain according to this table:

• Published prior to 2003: See rules outlined elsewhere.
• If the author or last author of a collaboration died before 1948: Entered the public domain 50 years after the last author's death.
• If the author or last author of a collaboration died in 1948 or later: January 1 of the year following the 75th anniversary of the last author's death.

Reference: US Copyright law immediately prior to the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.

Please comment for style and appropriateness and make any corrections. If there is a clear, off-wiki, electronic copy of the copyright act as it existed immediately prior to 1998, that would make a good reference. The only references I've seen were of current versions with footnotes saying what had changed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an assumption here that if something entered the public domain under the law as existed in 1997 then it must be in the public domain under the law that exists today. That's not obvious. There is nothing in the Copyright extension act that appears to be directly on point. However, the US has been party to agreements like the URAA accords where previously public domain works were explicitly reprotected, so it is not unprecedented for legislation to have the effect of revoking public domain status. In judging the legality of actions taken in the present day, courts will nearly exclusively make judgments on the basis of the law as it exists now. With that in mind, I think the more natural position is to assume that if the copyright law as presently written appears to protect something then we ought to operate on the assumption that it does, even if copyright law as it existed in the past may not have offered protection. Dragons flight (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The only law that has returned things to copyright, sans some edge cases with alien property around WWII, is the URAA. The CTEA explicitly did not return anything to copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Public domain" occurs not at all in the text of the CTEA. I agree that it does not explicitly aim to restore copyright protection to anything, but I know of no legal reason to assume it couldn't have implictly done so. Can you point to anything in US law that says once something expired into the public domain then it must remain there? If the law as presently written would allow something to be protected, I'd operate on the assumption that it is protected. Dragons flight (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a little subtle, but the CTEA explicitly does not restore copyright.

You have to start with the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 (CRA), Pub. L. No. 102-307, 106 Stat. 264: [1]. Section 102(g)(2) says The amendments made by this section shall apply only to those copyrights secured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977. Copyrights secured before January 1, 1964, shall be governed by the provisions of section 304(a) of title 17, United States Code, as in effect on the day before the effective date of this section. That is, the new law (on automatic renewal, not term extension) does not affect the older works that would have still required renewal.

Here's where the CTEA comes in. Section 102(d)(2) of the CTEA, [2], amends the above provision of CRA: in subsection (g)(2) in the second sentence by inserting before the period the following: ", except each reference to forty-seven years in such provisions shall be deemed to be 67 years". By this provision, the CTEA adopts the CRA's provision of continuing to have the older works governed by the older law. TJRC (talk) 06:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC mandatory quotation of public domain text

Is it mandatory or acceptable to require that public domain text be in a quotation style? Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC mandatory quotation of public domain text. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia public domain custom

Can someone confirm to an editor that "the custom is that we attribute public domain text but it then can be edited. We don't freeze text in quotations." at Talk:Bathhouse Row#Restoration of quoting to credit Harrison ? He seems to think I'm using the royal "we". -- SEWilco (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

<Without commenting on the particular case above> I've been here since year one. It has been common practice to start an article with PD text but dumping PD text with no or little editing has been frowned upon since PD text is often not written in an encyclopedic/neutral tone, is too dense/detailed, wrong, incomplete or otherwise needs to be edited and improved (See WP:NOT 2.4 #3).

When a good PD source is available for a topic I wish to write about, I'll copyedit/refactor/summarize/wikify that as appropriate and then further improve the text by introducing original prose based on non-PD references (see Yosemite National Park and 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens for examples). Of course, proper use of inline cites is needed throughout. Here is the key: The resulting text should be significantly better/more informative as an encyclopedia article than the original PD text alone.

It would be a great disservice to the project if we had to put all blocks of PD text in quotes since we couldn't improve on that text. Providing a link to the website the PD text is hosted on would almost be better. --mav (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Works ineligible for copyright protection

Re:

In short: U.S. Federal Government works, or no creative content

FWIW, apparently this works differently in Australia - lists of info such as a phone directory would be ineligible (no creative content) in the US, but are covered by copyright in Australia. (From convo with an academic - sorry, have no ref.) --Chriswaterguy talk 10:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Olympic rings

Image:Olympic Rings.svg claims the flag to be protected by copyright. How is that possible, given that the creator of the flag died more than 70 years ago? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

Strictly speaking, it's not copyright. Copyright pertains to works of authorship and is in Title 17 of the U.S. Code. The Olympic symbols and slogans are protected by a separate special purpose statute, 36 U.S.C. § 22050(a)(2). It's not copyright, but provides an exclusive right-to-use: "Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the corporation [i.e., the United States Olympic Committee] has the exclusive right to use... the symbol of the International Olympic Committee, consisting of 5 interlocking rings..." TJRC (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Signatures/autographs

I just wanted to confirm that the community at large considers handwritten signatures, being nothing more than a name in a particular stylized font or calligraphy, ineligible for copyright. Right? Postdlf (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

... as such ...

In reference to the Fonts section, is it grammatically correct to use as such so prolifically in the quote and then again in the content? It would appear that the phrase is used in this instance as a redundant term that does not add to the expression or definition. Does anyone have an objection to modification here? - Cheers Mark Vincent Andmark (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Public Domain on templates

Would it be feasible to create public domain templates or, since there have been changes in copyright laws and this would cause many templates to be created, could a section be added to infoboxes for book, film, etc? I know if I try to add it in, Wikipedia would get mad at me and the infobox would come out deformed and already does if I mess up even the tiniest detail, i.e. 1972 entered as 19772. I don't know why, it just does. -Darthjarek (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

German World War II images

My recent requests for sources clarifying some of the claims made in that section have been left unanswered so far. Unless outside sources, either in English or in German, are provided for what's being asserted throughout that section I will request that the corresponding WP:PD paragraphs be removed of rephrased. There's no such thing as a copyright owner to a WWII mugshot. Please stop speculating. --Poeticbent talk 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The default for anything post-1922 is copyright, especially for non-American works. [3] gives the low-down on exactly when German works were returned to copryight; unless you can prove that they fall through one of the narrow exceptions, they're probably in copyright, and we've got to assume they are. It's not speculation if that's the way the universe works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The spirit of the European Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works defines what the copyright protection implies. Quote from European Community (EC): Copyright (Harmonization Duration of Protection), Council Directive, 29/10/1993, No. 93/98 [4]:

Paragraph 17:
photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account

There's nothing in the Directive suggesting that concentration camp photos are in any way the author's own intellectual creation requiring copyright protection. This is not an exception, but an actual rule. --Poeticbent talk 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What image are you talking about? And where are your "recent requests"? If you mean the placement of {{fact}} in WP:PD, that's been done now. For the English WP, it's not all that important anyway, since most of our WWII German photos come from U.S. national archives and may perhaps be considered PD in the U.S. as "confiscated enemy property". En-WP doesn't care whether an image might be copyrighted in Germany, except where URAA restorations enter the picture. It's more an issue for the Commons. Lupo 19:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The law has always been interpreted broadly; someone takes a camera, and waves around, taking pictures of what they want, they own a copyright to resulting photos. Corporations take student pictures, and professional photographers take pictures of mountains, and say what you want about reflecting his personality, they have a copyright in those pictures. If a solider snapped some photos of a concentration camp, he (or his heirs, etc.) have copyright in those photos, unless they were done as an official part of his duties, then his employer (if it's not the US gov.) has a copyright in those pictures.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I requested a proof governing "all" World-War-II-era images and a clarification of "© USHMM" question in actual detail. I asked why the wartime German images "cannot be tagged as being in the public domain". A dead link was fixed for which I'm grateful,[5] (showing the case of a German applicant who made a photo of an emerging submarine in 1941, which does not cover for example concentration camp mugshots and the like) nevertheless the question of concrete proof of what is being claimed at WP:PD remains. The statement: "wartime German images cannot be tagged as being in the public domain" is false when reffering to photographic work which is NOT the author's "own intelectual creation reflecting his personality"[6]. Berne Convention clearly states what is and is not an original creation. I'm afraid the only way to show how misinformed and misleading is that entire section is to go ahead and rework it according to sources. For your information, here's the removed image discussion based on a faulty WP:PD premise at Wikipedia talk:Did you know? --Poeticbent talk 20:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The page clearly says "In general, wartime German images cannot be tagged as being in the public domain." Mugshots may be a different matter altogether. Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg might be fine here; in Germany, it might still be considered a work (the threshold of originality is not defined be the Berne Convention or the EU directives, and it is low in Germany), and thus it might indeed be inappropriate for the Commons. Lupo 20:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That rule has absolutely nothing to do with WWII German pictures. You're claiming that mugshots don't meet the minimum standard of creativity required for copyright, which applies to images made yesterday as much as 60 years ago. I'd love to see caselaw on that before taking the interpretation of a fine point of law into my own hands; I know that there have been heated cases on this, and the law is far from clear (and more importantly, how the law will be interpreted is far from clear.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you to please stay on topic Prosfilaes, because it is of no significance to this case what happens when you wave your camera around taking pictures. The elementary you went to does not own a copyright on the pics they took of you when you were twelve. Your pics do not legally belong to your elementary. That's why you are free to use them on your website without a copyright breach. If you think otherwise, than please give me something to read on that. Concentration camp mugshots have nothing to do with the creative selfexpression. Most of their subjects are deceased anyway. --Poeticbent talk 00:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The topic is German WWII photographs. If I'm not mistaken, private German citizens did own cameras at that time. Yes, in fact, if the elementary school took pictures if you when you were twelve, they own the rights to that photo, and you don't have the rights to put it on your website. If a professional photography outfit came to the school, you will find their copyright notice on the back of the photos, and you can in fact be sued for putting those photos on your page. [7] talks about this.

You harp on creative self-expression, but I've never seen it applied except in the most narrow fashion; Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. applies to exact copies of public domain paintings, and that article says "Some speculate the case would likely not apply to photographs of three-dimensional objects, as the photographic arrangement would plausibly require some creativity", and quotes a later court ruling as saying that there is a "very broad scope for copyright in photographs, encompassing almost any photograph that reflects more than 'slavish copying'." If you want to talk about mug shots, there's an argument there, but that's only a small part of German WWII images, or even concentration camp images.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The link you provided above, Prosfilaes, speaks about copy shops "often reluctant to make reproductions of old photographs for fear of violating the copyright law" which is reasonable. However, by law, "you are the sole owner of your face" which makes school pictures a bit more complex. My concern is about the cookie-cutter headshots especially the Holocaust mugshots most likely taken by concentration camp inmates and auxiliary staff. At the state museum in Auschwitz there are thousands of those kind of photographs covering walls top to bottom. Their legality should not be challenged so easily on the basis of a badly written subsection in this article. --Poeticbent talk 15:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
In closing. I’m highly disappointed with the revisions being made by editors not participating in our discussion while making far-fetched claims in Main Space. The reintroduced statement about all German World War II images being copyrighted is not supported by a single reliable source so far, therefore it is improper. I suppose it’s time for me to move on, since the question of real-life accountability is not what Wikipedia is about, is it? I regret wasting my time and energy here. --Poeticbent talk 18:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"you are the sole owner of your face" comes right below "Your photographer can and does claim copyright over his work." I pointed you to the source--the United States Copyright Office--that says that (virtually) all German WWII pictures are still in copyright, virtue of the URAA. If you want to talk about mugshots, then go ahead, but stop conflating the issue with German WWII pictures. Real life accountability means accepting that the law doesn't always say what you want it to stay, and frequently it's better to assume that stuff is copyrighted unless you have a solid legal reason to assume otherwise.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We're going round in circles, "conflating" German WWII pictures with...guess what: German WWII pictures. According to German de:Lichtbildwerk and the sources provided there, "simple photos" (Lichtbild), like mugshots, are not to be treated as "photographic works" (Lichtbildwerke), so how can the camp photos from over half a century ago be challenged by users as copyrighted. But, you are not the editor reverting my corrections or demanding that my pictures be removed,[8] so what difference does it make? --Poeticbent talk 03:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Prosfilaes is right, you are indeed conflating the issue of German WWII pictures with German mugshots.

If you want to add specific information about the threshold of originality in Germany, the appropriate section would be Wikipedia:Public domain#International aspects. But from your previous edits and the heading of this thread, it appears that you want to argue that the threshold of originality was significantly higher in Germany from 1939-1945 than at other times, and there is no basis for that.

The German Wikipedia had the debate about Lichtbildwerke vs. Lichtbilder years ago and it was basically decided to treat all photos except 2D reproductions as Lichtbildwerke, because it would be too unsafe legal ground (difficult to discern, changing court decisions. Note that even the 2D reproduction exception - the analogue of Bridgeman vs. Corel - is being contested by many photographers, museums and libraries who do reproductions). However the case of passport photos is currently being discussed at de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Passbilder - Lichtbildwerke oder Lichtbilder?.

As for the specific image you are concerned about, please note that even if its classification as Lichtbild would be accepted, one would need to find out the date of publication, cf. Image copyright (Germany)#Photos (Lichtbilder).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

To say that concentration camp mug-shots are not actual German WWII pictures, is like saying that small horses are not horses but rather sheep without horns; therefore, their “issues” shouldn’t be “conflated”. As it stands, the article states: all are copyrighted (no distinction made). It is an invitation to misinformed deletion requests by third party individuals. --Poeticbent talk 16:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The main page says at the very top that the public domain was the sum of the works "that were not eligible for copyright in the first place, or whose copyright has expired", and there is a whole section on #Non-creative works. All the rest is about works that do pass the threshold or originality. And since this page is at the English WP, it is written from a U.S. perspective. It doesn't go into the details on how the threshold of originality varies between countries. Should we add something about this? Lupo 21:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think US law cares how the threshold of originality varies between countries, so it's not really relevant for this page. I can see and appreciate the argument that mugshots aren't copyrightable, but I believe that states do claim copyright on them, and I'm not sure that a court battle over the issue would result in a win for us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that according to new Wiki research (including a series of new articles), the concentration camp photos were made not by Germans, but by the Polish prisoners such as Wilhelm Brasse. Please see further discussion in Commons about the PD status of all such images here and at all subsequent links. I've expanded on the corresponding subsection accordinly. --Poeticbent talk 19:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Pictures from book

Hi. I'm just asking, I want to use a picture from a book. Since the author took the pictures before 1923, are they public domain or are they covered by the book's copyright? The book takes photos from the Public Archives of Canada. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 23:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If they were published before 1923, they're in the public domain. If not, then the whole thing is complex and questionable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright status of WTO photos

Hi all. I'm hoping to add some more photos to the World Trade Organization articles and was hoping to use some WTO photos. I came across this discussion from a few years ago but I don't believe they reached an conclusion on whether we can upload these photos to here or to commons. Any thoughts? Thanks so much --Patrick (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Contact them through e-mail and ask them politely to license their images as CC-BY-2.5, like the WEF did. Lupo 21:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Need proofreading for Crown Copyright

I think the section "Companies House - When downloading accounts for a Company listed, they are free of copyright and may be posted on any website. The are public record and statutory. The situation is the same for birth and death certificates. There is no copyright for this type of public record. Please see www.companieshouse.gov.uk." has trouble. I really don't understand what it means, and when it applies. Besides, it has typo error. Vinhtantran (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Missing citations and improper citation format

Material added recently relating to listings of images in WP:PUI is missing verifiable reliable source citations and contains a preponderance of embedded external links to dubious sources that need to be checked for reliability. See the editorial interpolation at start of section just templated; the material added seems related to an editing war over images whose licensing and copyright status in Wikipedia has been unresolved and are still templated as under consideration for deletion. Wikipedia cannot cite itself for reasons that are made clear by the missing citations in this section. It would not be a reliable source citation. This section needs editing in conformance with Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles; it needs "full citations" in proper citation format, preferably with citation templates that would match the prevailing citation format throughout the article that existed prior to the additions. For contexts re: the disputes regarding images, please see: Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg and Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg and the review discussions in the templates on the images. To be useful for understanding the status of these images in Wikipedia, one needs a section here that follows Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:V#Sources, WP:CITE, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I am sorry to have to be the one to point these problems out, as I have been one to question the licensing of those particular images uploaded to Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons. But it is necessary to do so. I found this section via a search for "images of Nazi regime U.S. copyright law" that led to a Wapedia/Wikipedia link. There is now a Wikipedia "feedback loop" directing to unsourced material in Wikipedia that is being spread throughout the internet. This section needs re-writing with verifiable reliable sources following prevailing citation format prior to its recent additions. --NYScholar (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The removal by another editor of this material added recently does help, but it does not alter the other problems of missing citations and inconsistent citation formatting throughout; I've added the templates at top of article again, and also added the template in the section that the Wapedia link drew to my attention. See more recent comments posted below. --NYScholar (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• (cont.)I've added the templates to this talk page. Given the importance of Wikipedia:Public domain as a Wikipedia content guideline, it is really crucial that it provide reliable information to Wikipedia editors and that its editing conforms to all Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines; especially Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:V, and WP:NOR. In its current state, this "content guideline" appears not to do so. Again, I am sorry to have to be the one to point this out. I encountered the problem outside of Wikipedia, when directed to this page via Wapedia. --NYScholar (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• (cont.) I just returned to add that other sections of this "content guideline" seem to have or may have similar problems of missing citations/unreliable embedded external links, as indicated in the section to and in which I placed the missing citation templates. My attention was drawn outside of Wikipedia to the particular section to which and in which I added the missing citations templates. The whole "content guideline" page needs scrutiny and clean up re: the problems pointed out above. Just as any other content added to Wikipedia, it needs to be in keeping with editing policies and guidelines, linked in the talkheader above and found at WP:LOP/WP:POL. But especially a "content guideline" ("project page") to which Wikipedia editors and administrators turn for editing guidance must be wholly reliable and follow Wikipedia's own core editing policies and not be subject to questions about its integrity. "Copyright issues" and "public domain" are controversial matters in Wikipedia discussions of content, and this "content guideline" needs to be something that everyone can trust and be "guided" by. My observations simply express my concerns and questions about the reliability of this "project page." As it stands, this "project page" also needs a "neutrality" template. I'll look for one and see if I can add it. --NYScholar (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• (cont.) I have restored the reverted templates at the top of this "project page" for this "content guideline" and restored the template to "missing citations" in the section discussed initially above; almost every sentence in that section has either missing source citations to verifiable reliable sources (WP:V) and/or contains improper embedded external links in the body; see WP:V#Sources and WP:EL. "Full citations" are needed throughout this "project page"; some of it is highly "controversial" and it is too important a "content guideline" to remain in this state.

(cont.)Editors of project pages must follow Wikipedia content editing policies and guidelines just as anyone else must; other editors depend on pages like this for "guidance". It needs to be properly documented with verifiable reliable sources and not full of embedded external links. External links need to be placed in the EL section, following guidelines in WP:EL. Sources need to be in-line citations, following WP:CITE, providing information about authors, titles, organs of publication, places and dates of publication, publisher, page number refs. (as these apply), and links in proper Wikipedia format throughout.

(cont.) Again, I was not logged into Wikipedia when I encountered the section via other research. People doing research on the internet (via search engines like Google) should not be misled by a page like this in Wikipedia. It devalues Wikipedia outside of Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really buy that Polish stuff either and I'm glad we agree on keeping it out until a better-written and better-sourced version arrives. On the other hand I felt you went completely over board in asking for citations. I don't think sentences like "The issue of German photographs from World War II has created some confusion" need explicit citations - it's pretty clear that there's a lot of confusion about this. Nor do I think a reasonable question like "What about images seized by Nazi Germany?" needs a citation. I also feel that you're treating this policy page too much like an article in mainspace. Haukur (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just saw this (was logged out). I appreciate your comments. I have just alerted readers of this "project page" outside of Wikipedia (who are directed here by a search engine) and editors of Wikipedia to these problems. I do not generally edit "project pages" in Wikipedia. I leave the comments for the benefit of those who do and administrators concerned about the integrity of this kind of page in Wikipedia. All content in Wikipedia has to follow its editing policies, whether or not it is a "content guideline" in a "project page" or "an article in mainspace." This project page is in Wikipedia "mainspace", as I understand it (though I don't use the term and rarely encounter it, as I edit articles or comment on talk pages of them).

(cont.)For the copies of the page produced via all kinds of other Wikis, the distinction between kinds of "space" in Wikipedia is not operational. The point is that the information in this project page needs to follow WP:V, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and WP:NOR, as I understand Wikipedia editing policies. (It already includes notes to source citations; that is its prevailing citation format; the multiple use of ELs within its body is not Wikipedia practice and does not follow WP:EL or WP:CITE. The "content guideline" already contains a warning re: not editing it without clear Consensus. It also should not have embedded (hyperlinked) external links (the source citations can be converted to in-line citations supporting the statements re: the words currently hyperlinked); its sources need to be clearly identified with in-line source citations. This page is supposed to define a Wikipedia "content guideline"; it is not supposed to be subject to as much variable editing as other Wikipedia articles. Given the importance of this "content guideline" as it is linked to Wikipedia:Copyright and WP:Copyvio, within WP:POL, via WP:LOP, it needs to be reputable and above partisan editing. Again, thank you for your thoughtful reply; I do appreciate it. I hope that other editors will maintain vigilance re: editing of this page and the other related "content guidelines" in Wikipedia project pages. --NYScholar (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(cont.) This project page is linked directly at the top of Public domain and accessible via that link in Wikipedia "main space". (Again, if I am using "main space" mistakenly, please just excuse that; I don't always have the right Wikipedian lingo; but the point that this project page needs to be entirely reliable and verifiable and neutral still stands. (Again, I was led to this page via an external search engine while not logged on and came here to point out the problems. I'm sorry that I can't help with editing this project page; I just have to be mostly logged out of Wikipedia to do other things. I will not see replies until I might log back in. I leave it to others to correct these perceived problems.) --NYScholar (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns. In the usual jargon pages prefaced with "Wikipedia:" are in Wikipedia-space, pages prefaced with "User:" are in userspace and pages prefaced with nothing (i.e. encyclopedia articles) are in mainspace. You're certainly right that this policy page should be factual and I agree that it should be, at least to some extent, cited and backed up by references. It does not, however, need to be written from a neutral point of view in the sense applied to articles in mainspace. It's not an encyclopedia article on the public domain, it's meant to be a practical guide to the use of public domain material on Wikipedia. If you have specific concerns about the accuracy of specific parts of the WWII section, we can try to address them. I don't see the precise formatting of citations or the use of external links as much of a problem. (Again, that's something I'd be more concerned with in mainspace.) Haukur (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications; I've requested comment re: what editing policies and guidelines pertain to editing this "project page" with its "content guideline" in what you advise me is called "Wikipedia-space". I understand removal of the templates and do not object to their removal (having read the subsequent replies); nevertheless, given the frequency with which Public domain and Wikipedia:Public domain are being cited as a rationale for determining whether or not specific images are being legally uploaded to Wikipedia and/or Wikipedia Commons, it seems really important that this page be edited in ways that follow policies and guidelines for editing "policy and guideline pages" ("project pages") and that editors who do contribute and edit content (including media/images) to Wikipedia be able to rely upon its accuracy. --NYScholar (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're curious about neutrality as it is (not) applied to policy pages you may be interested in this little guideline which encourages users to lie, break rules and adopt a by-whatever-means-necessary approach to getting photographs of public domain material. And I'm rather fond of that guideline. Haukur (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "neutrality of this article is disputed" tag because WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR are all article content policies, not policies governing the project space. I think you just need to apply commonsense rather than trying to force a project page to conform to article policies. Most of the Wikipedia space material isn't NPOV and is in fact based on unverifiable original research. Sarah 17:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of policies on Wikipedia. Who create these policies? AdjustShift (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Are these policies created by Wikipedia editors? AdjustShift (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see subsequent section/RFC. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• So many characters just because of the use of inline links. Oh boy. Anyway, those used as references in the first two paragraphs have now been converted to <ref>s. I have removed the sentence you tagged with {{fact}}. It was unnecessary anyway, it's the domain of WP:NFC anyway. Lupo 20:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It was, however, actually this edit, edit no. 238184098 (see prev. and next edits relating to it via compare "Diffs.") and not the merely use of external links that led to my comments above, in my editing summaries, and the section below (they related also to the templates added and later removed; they were explanations of the templates).

(cont.) Following my earlier comments pertaining to that recently-added material, Haukur deleted the added passages in that and subsequent edits re: edit no. [238184098.

(cont.) I appreciate the work of others who are also trying to help to improve the writing of this project page/"content guideline", as it is quite important to those seeking accurate and reliable definitions of Wikipedia's own content guideline pertaining to what content is considered in the "public domain" in Wikipedia and what is ambiguous and/or controversial and may need further investigation and/or advice from intellectual-property law experts (which, generally speaking, Wikipedians are not). Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

On creating and editing policies and guidelines in Wikipedia

In response to the questions posed above by AdjustShift, which I just noticed, please see: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines; the individual sections in that page address these and related questions; e.g., Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Policy-related pages, which has a sub-section pertaining to both "Policy and guideline pages". See also the reference to the "five pillars" of Wikipedia editing as that page seems to suggest that they pertain to editing these kinds of "project pages" in Wikipedia. [They refers back to "Policies" in that reference; it still seems rather ambiguous whether or not and to what degree the linkage to WP:5P pertains or may pertain also to "guidelines"; perhaps the "policy" regarding editing guidelines (project pages about content guidelines) could be more clearly stated?*] That is one context for my previous comments about this project page and the "content guideline" contained therein. --NYScholar (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• "They are often closely linked to the five pillars of Wikipedia. Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies, with exceptions more likely to occur." [added the quotation from that section (bullet keyed to asterisk above). --NYScholar (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC) [Trying to clarify further. --NYScholar (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)]

The question remains: Do the five pillars of Wikipedia pertain to editing a project page/content guideline such as Wikipedia:Public domain and specifically to this project page/content guideline? And if the five pillars do apply, to what degree do they apply to editing this particular project page/content guideline? --NYScholar (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I just don't really get this focus on meta-questions of what policy pages apply to the editing of what other policy pages. Are you concerned about some specific factual issue relating to the public domain? Haukur (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar: thanks for your response to my queries. It is difficult to reply to your queries about the five pillars of Wikipedia! AdjustShift (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Does "freedom of panorama" extend to architectural drawings?

Are architectural drawings (layout of rooms) subject to "freedom of panorama"? Can I freely use such a drawing, or create my own version of it? I am asking on the basis of Singaporean Law, which permits "freedom of panorama" (but I am unsure on the exact details).

Ref: per Section 64 of the Copyright Act (Chapter 63) of Singapore Law, The copyright in a building or a model of a building is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the building or model or by the inclusion of the building or model in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast. (Aust. 1968, s. 66) [9]

A drawing by someone else would be their copyright. Creating your version of their drawing would make a derivative work which would contain a copyright infringement. Going to the actual building (or model of it) and making a drawing would then create a work which was your copyright. Of course, there would be inevitable overlaps with someone else's drawing, as you would both be depicting the same subject, but the point is that you would not have made your drawing by copying parts of theirs. Ty 03:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

public domain entry point?very confusing!

I came upon the public domain here through a course that raved Wikipedia as having public access to free images that can be uploaded for website design etc. How does one search for images and for starters where do I access the public domain? Is it within Wkipedia? or a seperate portal?

Also, if this is a public domain talk page...Why is this called a comment page? Maybe I don't belong here? Joannerees (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)