Template talk:PD-art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Looking for the right copyright tag?[edit]

Abecedare 16:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


Making this was a good idea. I have some further suggestions:

  • can we make it parameterised, hopefully getting someone using it to explicitly say when the painting was done?
  • I think we should have some note somewhere clarifying when this can and cannot be used. My understanding is that Bridgeman doesn't apply to photos of buildings, ceramics, or sculptures, and almost certainly doesn't apply to photos of stained-glass or bas-reliefs?

-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The date the painting was done isn't relevant in most cases, only the date the artist died. (Though since copyright law has changed a lot over the years there are probably some cases where it matters.) It would be nice to encourage people to give dates and artists for paintings, as well as who did the digitizing. It would also be nice to give some idea of the extent to which the ruling in Bridgeman v. Corel applies around the world. The judge gave a ruling based on UK law as well as US law, so a UK court might be persuadable that it applies in the UK too [1], [2]. Gdr 18:56, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
Actually under US law, if the artwork was "published" before 1978, the date of the artist's death is not relevant at all, only the date of "publication". What constitutes publication for a work of art is unclear, but a public exhibition probably counts. DES (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki link to vi:[edit]

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

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


 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 03:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. — Catherine\talk 04:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Does this case of public domain apply for coins? Flag of Bulgaria.svg → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov 18:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No. See discussion here and 'official' counsel here. Of course, coins taken from websites such as Wildwinds are permitted through the use of {{CNG}} copyright tag. --Steerpike 13:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


Please fix the accidental piped redirect leading to United States of America rather than United States. Thanks! Darkildor 00:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


This is nit-picky, but court cases should be in italics. Please put '' around "Bridgeman v. Corel". —Chowbok 21:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

interwiki link[edit]

Please add th:แม่แบบ:PD-art for interwiki link. Thanks --Jutiphan | Talk - 05:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

YesY Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

related template[edit]

I have created {{PD-Flatart-Nosource}} for use when a photo of a PD 2-D artwork has no explict source. Please consider using it in place of this template in proper cases. DES (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please also note {{ImageRound-Nosource}} for cases where no source is provided, and the artwork in question is not flat, but is 3D. DES (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move[edit]

I suggest that we move this template to {{PD-flatart}}. This template only applies to 2-D (flat) works of art, but because of its name is often used on images of 3-D works of art. DES (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Note the newly created {{PD-Roundart}} that parallels this tempalte for the 3-d case. DES (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

100 or 70 ?[edit]

IMO the tamplate should use the 70 year limit rather than the 100 year one. The reasoning is as follows: This template is meant to be used for "photographs of old 2-d art". AFAIK such images are PD in US if the author of the original work died >70 years ago (as per {{PD-old-70}}) under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp..
If the author has been dead for >100 years, the original object is PD in some other countries too, but Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., which is just a US district court ruling, does not necessarily hold sway in those countries, so photographs of the otherwise PD object may still not be PD there.
So I don't know what using 100 instead of 70 buys us ? The flip side is that using the 100 year limit makes images such as Image:10 Muharram.jpg (where the artist died in 1929, i.e. 78 years ago) seemingly unfree and liable to be deleted (see discussion here). Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect, or this topic has been/ should be discussed elsewhere. Abecedare 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well for the matter of that, as far as US law is concerned, the Life+70 term only applies to works that are unpublished, or that were published after 1977. Any work publised in the US before 1923, or published anywher in the world before 1 July 1909 are PD no mater when the author died. Note that "'Publication' was not explicitly defined in the Copyright Law before 1976, but the 1909 Act indirectly indicated that publication was when copies of the first authorized edition were placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed by the proprietor of the copyright or under his authority.” See this chart for more detail. DES (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! I also realized that I can use template {{PD-art-life-70}} and {{PD-art-life-50}} for the purpose I was envisioning. The main problem is that many images are mistagged and some editors (including me, till recently) mistakenly think that if an photograph does not qualify under {{PD-art}} then it is unfree and should be deleted. Perhaps it would help if the various PD-art realted templates pages were interlinked. Abecedare 16:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
See also {{PD-art-US}} DES (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. I have edited your {{USAtags}} addition to provide a more concise listing of tags that may be immediately relevant. Please revert if you disagree. Abecedare 16:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There seems to be an unresolved contradiction, in that {{PD-Art}} here produces "life of the author + 100 years in the U.S. ...", whereas the identical tag at Commons produces "life of the author + 70 years in the U.S., Canada, and EU ...". They can't both be right. JGHowes talk - 03:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Domitianus coin.jpg[edit]

This image has been tagged as PD-Art, however a coin is not a 2D work of art, therefore the photographer owns the copyright IMHO. I'm not reverting myself because I don't want to start an edit war. --Cruccone 17:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright applies. See discussion here and 'official' counsel here. Photographs of coins taken from websites such as Wildwinds are still permitted through the use of {{CNG}} copyright tag. --Steerpike 13:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

International issues[edit]


There is a fundamental error in the wording of this template. Copyright is contracted in the Country in which the work originated in. The fact that in other countries or the USA an image may enter the public domain 100 years after the death of the author has absolutely no bearing. Because of bilateral agreements which can be found in this document, the USA in which this image is hosted is bound to uphold copyrights contracted in other countries. The fact that the image is on internet doesn't change anything. See Yahoo court case precedent.

  • Basically what I'm saying is either the image is PD worldwide, or it is not PD at all, the country the viewer is viewing the image in has no bearing whatsoever.
  • Also the image may not be in the public domain even in the USA, if it was taken in a country that retains copyright on a photography of a PD work, (see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Country-specific rules)
  • At the moment wikipedia is violating copyright law, by encouraging users to upload images under a license that is illegal, and any decisions taken by foreign courts could be enforced in the US because of the aforementioned Yahoo case. To sum up the case Yahoo was potentially facing a fine of up 15 million $ because of a French court case (for selling Nazi memorabilia). Because they had no assets in France they were taken to court in the USA also, and in the end the San Fransisco Appeal Court decided that even though, Yahoo had done nothing illegal by US law (due to the first amendment of the Constitution), the American justice system could enforce the fine.
  • Basically if an image is copyrighted in one country then it is also copyrighted in the USA, the laws of which bind wikipedia, and wikipedia is liable for damages in the USA also.
  • I suggest something like: The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain because it originated in a country with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or less. The photograph of the work is also in the public domain because it was taken in a country that does not accord copyright to non-artistic photographies of Public Domain works, such as the United States (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.). See partial list.
  • The risk is that a user uploads a photo of a PD work which was taken in Sweden for example, and is thus copyrighted. Wikipedia then gets fined by a court in Sweden, and due to the Yahoo precedent has the decision enforced against it's assets in the USA. This is even more blatant than in the Yahoo case because the Constitution does not protect the release of work into the Public Domain, unlike how it protects the right to sell Nazi memorabilia (first amendment).
  • Hope that was not too hard to understand, it's fairly complicated, and I'm not sure I explained it so well. Jackaranga 10:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Obviously this is going to need some discussion. I'd suggest posting to one or more of these: the admin noticeboards, the village pump, the wikien-l mailing list (mail:wikien-l), or some of the more active talk pages for copyright policies. I'm inclined to let you speak for yourself, but if you like, I can make some of those posts to advertise this particular thread. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I've disabled the editprotected request. Honestly, your points may be entirely valid, but I didn't even read them. This needs to be brought up at one (or more) of the places listed in the comment above before a change like this can be made. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I hope en:wikipedia, like the commons and the other language wikipedias have done before them, will acknowledge the fact that US laws only apply to a very small part of the world, and can not in anyway govern what happens in other countries. Many works of art that are in the Public Domain, are in the UK or France, and I think it is important to note that most pictures of them (especially found at random on internet as many seem to be) will not be in the Public Domain, neither in that country nor in the USA. (Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Country-specific rules). Jackaranga 02:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrospective changing of license tags should only be done with great care. Otherwise you end up making it look like the uploaders agreed to something different to what they read when they uploaded the image. What you may need to do is mark the existing tag as invalid, create a new PD-tag, and slowly migrate all the existing images over from the old one to the new one, using humans to check each image. Carcharoth 02:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Public domain, as a legal concept, is defined differently in different countries and there is no escaping that. There is no such thing as being in the public domain worldwide except via the accident of having entered the public domain via the laws of every country on Earth. You have a number of other confusions in your comments. Pursuant to it's obligations under the Berne Convention and related international agreements, the US extends copyright protection to works produced in foreign countries if and only if the same work published in the US would be eligible for copyright. Consequently, per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., any photograph of a public domain artwork is also public domain in the US, regardless of where the photograph is taken or published. In other words, since a US citizen is not allowed to own a copyright on that work, the US is not required to and does not honor copyright claims from foreigners in the same work, even though the claim may be entirely valid in the foreigner's homeland.

However, even a photo of a public domain artwork taken in the US may be eligible for copyright in a foreign country if the photo is subsequently published there. In other words, if you photograph public domain artwork in the US you can still publish the photo in Sweden and expect Sweden to honor the copyright, but not the US.

As it stands, the template is entirely correct and appropriate in saying the photos of public domain images are also in the public domain in the United States. The US's method of honoring Berne and URAA makes it moot where the image was created, since the US does not offer copyright protection to foriegn works that would exceed the protection available to equivalent works created and published locally.

As to the specific point about being fined, that outcome is not impossible but will depend a lot on local laws. However, it is the position of the Wikimedia Foundation with respect to US law that they have blanket immunity pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, and that it is the uploader who is solely legally responsible for the content and not the Wikimedia Foundation. I assume they would attempt to make a similar argument in any foreign jurisdiction should a case arise. In other words, Wikimedia's position is that they are neither aware of nor responisble for the ways that individuals choose to use this site, and you do so at your own risk. 03:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the editor editing from is correct. But I am not a lawyer. --Iamunknown 03:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
No, read Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Country-specific rules, and the yahoo court case. Also read fr:Wikipédia:Règles d'utilisation des images. In particular: De plus, le fait que le serveur soit hébergé aux États-Unis n'annule pas la compétence des tribunaux français (voir l'affaire Yahoo!). Ce droit américain ne s'applique donc qu'aux images américaines. Celles dont les propriétaires feront valoir leurs droits en France ne sont pas concernées.
  • There is a clear consensus on all the other wikimedia projects that even though the server is in the USA, images are subject to the copyright regulations of the country in which the copyright was contracted.
Why is wikipedia the only wikimedia project on which it is ok to post copyright infringement material ? All the other are hosted in the US also. If you were correct why does Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Country-specific rules, even exist ? Jackaranga 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
A good reason for that page to exist is because Wikipedia Commons strongly encourages downstream use of its content, but this can be a legal minefield for our end users if this kind of material isn't handled properly. Example: a professional Swedish photographer takes a snap of an old Swedish painting. This photo will be protected by copyright under Swedish law, but not under U.S. laws. Image that such an image is uploaded to Commons and simply tagged as PD (citing US law and ignoring Swedish law). A Swedish kid sees it used on the Swedish Wikipedia, reads that Wikipedia's content may be reused, and decides to use it on his own website hosted in Sweden. Wikipedia would then have mislead him into believing that this material was legitimate for him to use, but that won't help him in his local court of law. The photo has never been PD under Swedish law, and the photographer can sue any end users in Sweden (or most other countries) citing that Brinkman vs. Corel Corp. only applies in the U.S. and possibly Germany, so he can sue end users of the image in Sweden, Norway, Britain, etc. The alternative to the current situation is to carefully label material to make sure that our end users are alerted the copyright status of an image differs under U.S. law and European law. Valentinian T / C 01:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Shorter version[edit]

My comment above was obviously too long, and people didn't read it so I will try again. Go to Commons:template:PD-Art, read where it says: This photograph was taken in the U.S. or in another country where a similar rule applies (for a list of allowable countries, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Country-specific rules). Tell me why we don't have this here. Jackaranga 04:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to this and above, Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag exists because it Commons:Licensing specifically says, "When uploading material from a country outside the US, the copyright laws of that country and the US apply." This has been the case for a long time. Commons is a common repository of free media for all Wikimedia projects, and thus media hosted therein must be PD in the U.S. (because that is where the servers are located) and in the jurisdiction of publication (because of the goal of Commons).
The English-language Wikipedia does not share that goal. That is why we do not have a "When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag" page here. We produce content that is necessarily free in the United States only (which may incidentally be free elsewhere), so works which may be copyrighted elsewhere but are in the public domain in the United States are considered "free". We expect downstream users to evaluate such uses to see if they are "free" in the jurisdiction of publication. (This is discussed in more detail in Wikipedia:Public domain.)
Also, I don't understand how http://www.cio.com/article/21582/Supreme_Court_Passes_on_Yahoo_Nazi_Case is relevant to this issue ... copyright law was not the concern of France when it ordered Yahoo to make it impossible to sell Nazi memorabilia to French citizens ... the concern was criminal law (see Template:Nazi symbol). --Iamunknown 04:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Because Yahoo was found to be fineable in the US for having broken French law, please read fr:Wikipédia:Règles d'utilisation des images, it says that this case applies to copyright, that's where I heard about it. Also copyright infringement is a criminal offense, like being a Nazi is in France. I have never seen anywhere on wikipedia the phrase: the goal of wikipedia is to steal copyrighted work from other countries and thanks to the complexity of international laws, release them into the Public Domain. Also remember the USA is not the only country to speak English, so en:wiki is no different from fr:wiki for example. en:wiki is not made only for Americans! Jackaranga 04:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
IANAL, but I have always been told that since Wikipedia servers are physically located in the USA, it is bound by USA copyright law, and thus it is not required that an image be public domain in all 160-odd nations around the world per each nation's local laws. The only valid laws that need be obeyed are those where Wikipedia is phyisically located, which is the USA. Pragmatically, it makes sense, since (for example) if Wikipedia merely followed the most restrictive law worldwide, it would not even exist, as some nations ban Wikipedia usage outright as subversive and dangerous to the state (see recent China issues). It has nothing to do with where you can read Wikipedia, but rather where Wikipedia actually exists, which is the USA, and thus should follow USA laws. But again, IANAL... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Yahoo was doing business in France via their auction site accepting bids from French citizens. That is the foundation for suing the company under French law. Whether a website that merely appears on the internet can be fined under local laws even though they have no local business there is largely untested legal territory. Setting that question aside, it is a valid position to desire that Wikipedia allows images only when they are free under all possible jurisdictions. However, historically and largely for practical reasons that is not the position that en-wiki takes on most issues. Generally en-wiki concerns itself with only the question of whether something is acceptable in the jurisdiction that the servers are located, i.e. the US. See for example, WP:NFCC, which relies upon fair use, a legal concept that is largely non-existent outside the US. 04:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Look, this is just silly, making me say thinks I never said, etc. when did I ever say we should check the copyrights of all countries ?
  • Anyway I have finally found formal proof:
Article 5

(1) Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which they are protected under this Convention, in
 countries of the Union other than the country of origin, the rights which their respective laws do
 now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as well as the rights specially granted by this

(2) The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality; such
 enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of
 origin of the work. Consequently, apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of
 protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be
 governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed.

The USA signed this convention: end of story. Something needs to be done to correct the template, as was done for the other wikimedia projects.

I just wish I had checked this first, would have avoided a lot of comments. Jackaranga 07:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the entire text by the way. Jackaranga 07:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand the convention. Specifically: "Authors shall enjoy ... the rights which [the signatory countries] respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals" - which means that the US must protect the copyrights of foreigners to the same degree that they protect copyrights of their own citizens (i.e. "their nationals"). The US does not protect photos of public domain images created by its own citizens therefore it need not (and does not) protect such photos created by foreign nationals. 07:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, you technicaly ought to refer to Title 17 of the US code (i.e. the US copyright law) rather than the Convention, since the US specifically declares that "The provisions of the Berne Convention shall be given effect under title 17 ... and shall not be enforceable in any action brought pursuant to the provisions of the Berne Convention itself." Which is to say that the US amended their law to address the requirements of the Convention, but that the Convention itself is not admissable in US courts. Title 17 is quite clear that foriegn nationals have no more (and no less) protection than US citizens. 07:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The U.S. does not implement the Berne Convention exactly. Example: no rule of the shorter term. --Iamunknown 08:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The Berne convention is not law in the US as has often been discussed and demonstrated here before. It's traditionally been enough for English Wikipedia to comply with US copyright laws and I don't see a good reason to change that. Haukur 21:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that it would be appropriate to ensure that this issue is raised with the Foundation's counsel (I forget his name) and ask for an on-wiki response to we have easy access to that legal opinion. Short of a court case, the legal advice given to the Foundation should probably be considered binding (in the case of legal advice obtained in normal professional manner). SamBC(talk) 17:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Bridgeman[edit]

Per discussion with User:Mikegodwin, the wording has been changed slightly. -- Avi (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

mk interwiki[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please add mk:Шаблон:Јд-уметност interwiki. Thanks. --iNkubusse? 11:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, Alex Muller 19:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible changes to PD-Art on Commons[edit]

On the Commons, there is currently a debate going on about whether or not to make the use of {{PD-Art}} less restrictive (and thus closer to how it is used on the English Wikipedia). Right now on Commons, PD-Art can only be used for images that are public domain both in the U.S. and the country of origin. On the English Wikipedia, we only care about the public domain status in the U.S. This is why we have templates like {{do not move to Commons}} for old British portraits and the like. (In Britain and many other European countries, every photograph of a painting gets a brand new copyright.) If you are interested in this issue, please join the debate or vote in the Straw Poll. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)



Think we could set this up to be more like PD-Art on Commons? You know, you go {{pd-art|pd-us}} and it spawns a frame that explains that its still PD, and then the licence inside it. Why this particular template restricts it to 100 years I don't know, cause there are reasons it could be PD in the US other than that. ViperSnake151 18:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide the exact code that you propose be added or amended before using the {{editprotected}} tag again? Edit requests should be specific. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay..if that's the case

|text=This image is in the public domain because under [[United States copyright law]], [[Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.|originality of expression]] is necessary for copyright protection, and a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright work may not be protected under American copyright law. The official position by the Wikimedia Foundation is that all reproductions of public domain works should be considered to be in the public domain regardless of their country of origin (even in countries where [[sweat of the brow|mere labor]] is enough to make a reproduction eligible for protection).

Around the lines of this. ViperSnake151 13:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Stifle (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Also, we should add a documentation page too. ViperSnake151 15:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Specifically, please write the documentation subpage (Template:PD-art/doc) then someone will link it. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


{{editprotected}} The current version of this template has lost an important detail - that it applies only two two-dimensional works of art. As currently phrased, it implies that photographs of PD sculptures and the like (eg File:Michelangelos David.jpg) would be automatically PD, which is not the case. Either the template should be made a copy of Commons:Template:PD-Art, or at least say "This image of a two-dimensional work of art ...". I prefer the Commons version because its "faithful photographic reproduction" part also covers the issue of 'creative' photographs not being PD. --dave pape (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by Carnildo - template now reads "and a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright two-dimensional work may not be protected ...". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)



Please edit the template like this:

This image is in the public domain because under United States copyright law, originality of expression is necessary for copyright protection, and a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright two-dimensional work may not be protected under American copyright law, especially if the out-of-copyright work is two-dimensional, but also if it is three-dimensional and the reproduction does nothing more than accurately convey the underlying image. The official position of the Wikimedia Foundation is that all reproductions of public domain works should be considered to be in the public domain regardless of their country of origin (even in countries where mere labor is enough to make a reproduction eligible for protection).

Courts have often held that reproductions of 3D works have no copyright protection. The question is whether the reproduction is an independent creation or is instead merely a copy. If there are substantial decisions regarding things like angle, background, and lighting then it may qualify as an independent creation, but otherwise it won't. See:

Meshwerks v. Toyota Motor Sales, (10th Cir. 2008); Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 323 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2003); Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel, 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); ATC Distr. Group v. Whatever it Takes, 402 F. 3d 700 (6th Cir. 2005), etc.

"The law is becoming increasingly clear: one possesses no copyright interest in reproductions . . . when these reproductions do nothing more than accurately convey the underlying image." Wojcik, Mary. "The Antithesis of Originality", 30 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L. J. 257, 267 (2008).

Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I came here following a discussion about a particular image.[3]Ferrylodge (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It is true that Courts have sometimes held that specific reproductions of 3D works have no copyright protection, but that is a very different thing from allowing all photos of 3D works of art that are themselves in the public domain, which is what your proposal would effectively do. The wording "the reproduction does nothing more than accurately convey the underlying image" has I believe no legal basis and would be quite impossible to apply in practice. Commons does not allow such a huge extension of PD-Art and I see no prospect that we will do so unless the law changes. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The wording "the reproduction does nothing more than accurately convey the underlying image" certainly does have a legal basis. See Wojcik, Mary. "The Antithesis of Originality", 30 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L. J. 257, 267 (2008): "The law is becoming increasingly clear: one possesses no copyright interest in reproductions...when these reproductions do nothing more than accurately convey the underlying image." This exact sentence has been cited and quoted approvingly by the Tenth Circuit in the Meshwerks case, for example. It's an accurate statement of the law.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Please can you obtain consensus for this edit and then repost the request? I can't perform the request when opinion is split like this. Also, perhaps you could discuss this on Wikipedia:Copyrights as this talk page may not receive much traffic. Thanks, Martinmsgj 10:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for considering the matter.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
What is the Wojcik citation you mention, please? Is it an article, and is it available on line? I would like to read it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
That law review article does not appear to be available online. However, the Tenth Circuit decision quoting it is here.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I have read the caselaw, and fear I cannot agree with your analysis; sorry. There are four cases listed. Bridgeman is the basis for the existing wording of the PD-Art tag, and addresses 2D to 2D slavish copying only. Meshworks related to 3D to 3D slavish copying, where a computer wire-frame model of a car was held to be insufficiently original for copyright protection as it amounted merely to a raw copy within a computer of the original car with no scope for individual expression. ATC held that a drawing of a mechanical part directly copied from a photograph in a competitor's catalog could not in itself attract any new copyright; it was not part of the court's role in that case to decide whether the photograph in the competitor's catalog itself had copyright or not. In Ets-Hokin it was indeed held that a particular photo of a vodka bottle attracted no copyright, but that case is notoriously difficult to extract any clear principle from - the ratio is very confused - and it does not in itelf support broadening the PD-Art tag in the way you have suggested.
The quotation that forms the basis of the proposed PD-Art new wording was approved in Meshwerks in the conxtext of slavish copying of an image, and immediately follows on from a reliance on the 2D to 2D slavish copying that ocurred in Brigeman and in ATC (both 2D image cases). The court was using the quote to firmly establish the 2D to 2D slavish copying rule, and from there it generalized to denying copyright protection for slavish 3D to 3D copying. The court was not suggesting that for example a photograph of a sculpure would be copyright-free (3D to 2D). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for studying the matter. I am not suggesting that a photograph of a sculpure would typically be copyright-free (3D to 2D). But, a straight-on, slavish copy of a bas relief could easily be copyright free.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately not, because it has creative considerations regarding lighting of the relief elements and is not just a copy of a 2D image. Ty 08:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggested deprecation[edit]

To facilitate determining which images should be moved to Commons, I suggest we deprecate {{PD-art}} and begin to replace it with {{PD-art-US}} or {{PD-art-life-70}}, as applicable. Another important frequently-encountered combination is PD-art-US works which are anonymous or pseudonymous and whose source country is in the EU - these are PD in the EU and so also candidates for moving to Commons. Dcoetzee 21:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fact concerning mention of official WMF position[edit]

This template contains the following statement:

The official position of the Wikimedia Foundation is that all reproductions of public domain works should be considered to be in the public domain regardless of their country of origin (even in countries where mere labor is enough to make a reproduction eligible for protection).

I can find no verifiable source to support the assertion that the Wikimedia Foundation has made any official comment of the nature mentioned. As it stands, I think the above statement is false. If you know of a source which proves otherwise please say so.

I have also raised this issue at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Disputed_Fact_Regarding_Official_Status

9carney (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)