Wikipedia talk:Public domain/Archive 2018
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 2015 | Archive 2016 | Archive 2017 | Archive 2018 |
US Government works
I came across something while looking at www
Example cases section
In short: this section is a mess. I am thinking of removing it. Or perhaps it can be forked to a subpage. The examples seem way too specific to be worthy of inclusion. If the use of World War II German photos or photos by Yousuf Karsh raise copyright issues, why not discuss these issues on the talk page of whatever article's inclusion of said photos is contested?
Speaking of which, the Yousuf Karsh subsection seems hardly relevant, just as didn't seem relevant back in 2005 when it was first added (I checked). It contains bare inline URLs, two of them redlinked, even. Whatever the issue appears to be with these particular uploads, I don't see why these can't be discussed on their relevant (Wikimedia) talk pages. Better yet, I just removed a user's two-year-old signature from this section.
On an already cluttered project page that is in dire need of some copy editing, the inclusion of this section only creates additional clutter. Jay D. Easy (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The Music Modernization Act and changes to US copyright law
The Music Modernization Act (MMA) was signed into law in the US in October of this year. From what has been said elsewhere, the MMA has changed the copyright situation in the US regarding sound recordings that were first fixed prior to February 15, 1972. (In short, under the MMA, pre-1972 recordings are copyrighted under US federal copyright law for a term that depends on when the recording was first published. In particular, for recordings that were first published prior to 1923, this term lasts until January 1, 2022.) Among other sources, this archived VP/C discussion on Commons may be of interest. In the meantime, the present information about sound recordings and US copyright on Wikipedia:Public domain may be outdated. --Elegie (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- I put a list of changes at the top of the section, but they need to be integrated into the text. I also updated the table. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Antony-22: Thank you for your edits. With regard to copyright term expiration under the MMA, my understanding of what others have said is that recordings that were published from 1923-1946 have a copyright term of 100 years from the year of first publication (for example, a recording that was first published in 1940 would enter the public domain on January 1, 2041 (assuming that the copyright ends at the end of a calendar year)) and that recordings that were published from 1947-1956 have a copyright term of 110 years from the year of first publication (for example, a recording that was first published in 1952 would enter the public domain on January 1, 2063.) At the same time, recordings first published before 1923 and recordings published after 1956 but first fixed prior to February 15, 1972 will enter the public domain on fixed dates (January 1, 2022 and February 15, 2067, respectively.) This detail may be worth looking into. --Elegie (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Passport photos
Are US passport photos public domain? Are foreign passport photos?
US passports themselves are PD because they are generated by an employee of the State Department. But is the photo within the passport copyright-free? In most cases, the applicant takes two photos of themselves (or has a photographer do it) and submits them along with their application. Does the application contain any language that the applicant is surrendering the copyright of those photograph?
This came up on the photograph of Tashfeen Malik, the female San Bernardino shooter. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tashfeen Malik.jpg. Another way of looking at it, can a celebrity who is jealous of their image copyright-protect the photo within their passport? See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Janisjoplin.png. Maybe it's moot because a passport photo doesn't rise to a sufficient level of creativity? We need an answer to this for the possible removal of File:Tashfeen Malik.jpg. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- U.S. passport photographs are probably covered under "Template:PD-USGov-State". – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 07:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Most definitely not. They are not the work of a government official in any way. I think you've got a hard row to hoe if you want to argue they're anything but copyrighted like most any other picture.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Prosfilaes: I would be in disagreement there. If you submit an artistic photograph to a passport authority it will be rejected. Identification photographs are taken to set criteria to focus on facial features with all other components being neutral, ... criteria criteria criteria that just make whomever the button presser. Further the photographer would be seen to have zero right to recoup fees from a government who made them, and where would you find a court that would find against the government and award fees for reproduction? How would you see identification photographs passing the threshold of originality? I would suggest that they fall under the classification of simple photographs. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- According to [2], US passport photos are public domain as government works only if they are photos taken by the government, so a passport photo taken by anyone else is not automatically public domain, even if the rest of the passport is. Per Commons, simple photo criteria vary by country. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Prosfilaes: I would be in disagreement there. If you submit an artistic photograph to a passport authority it will be rejected. Identification photographs are taken to set criteria to focus on facial features with all other components being neutral, ... criteria criteria criteria that just make whomever the button presser. Further the photographer would be seen to have zero right to recoup fees from a government who made them, and where would you find a court that would find against the government and award fees for reproduction? How would you see identification photographs passing the threshold of originality? I would suggest that they fall under the classification of simple photographs. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Most definitely not. They are not the work of a government official in any way. I think you've got a hard row to hoe if you want to argue they're anything but copyrighted like most any other picture.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)