Help
Add this page to your book
Show book (0 pages)
Suggest pagesWikipedia talk:Public domain
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Public domain page. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||
| Archives: Index, 1, 2 | |||
 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information. |
 Archives (Index) |
|---|
|
|
| Threads older than 3 months may be archived by MiszaBot I. |
Contents |
[edit] Public domain in Indonesia
Please see here for a discussion on recent changes in the language of PD-Indonesia templates. Comments and suggestions would be highly appreciated. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Documents from whistleblowers
The latest corporate scandal in Japan was accompanied by the release of documents such as this one by the whistle-blowing author. As can be seen, at the time it was written, the letter was meant to be "strictly confidential". The author of the letters has made them very public: he said: ""It's all in the public now ... I've passed my correspondence to the world's media, the SFO; I'm now in communication with the FBI. This can't be hidden, this can't be put away in a box. Now the NYT has seen fit to put it on its servers. Can we infer that the copyright status of the document is now PD? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- I can't see why secrecy or lack of secrecy would affect public domain status. It would be interesting to know the rationale behind the New York Times decision.
- What do you mean by that comment? So is it PD or not? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Copyright law protects works for a long time; something like the life of the author plus 70 years. So for contemporary news, we don't need to worry about copyright expiring; we'll all be dead before that happens. Almost every work with the slightest degree of originality is copyrighted, with a few exceptions. The biggest exception I've noticed are works by employees of the US federal government. But that does not apply to these works. So they're copyrighted, unless the author (or whoever holds the copyright) has released them to the public domain in writing. Apparently the author has made them available to the news media, but the exact terms under which he made them available were not revealed. We have no way of knowing of the news media published them by permission, or if the author released them to the public domain. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I'll just link to it, then. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Copyright law protects works for a long time; something like the life of the author plus 70 years. So for contemporary news, we don't need to worry about copyright expiring; we'll all be dead before that happens. Almost every work with the slightest degree of originality is copyrighted, with a few exceptions. The biggest exception I've noticed are works by employees of the US federal government. But that does not apply to these works. So they're copyrighted, unless the author (or whoever holds the copyright) has released them to the public domain in writing. Apparently the author has made them available to the news media, but the exact terms under which he made them available were not revealed. We have no way of knowing of the news media published them by permission, or if the author released them to the public domain. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean by that comment? So is it PD or not? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Bella
[edit] Template:PD-shape
Is it OK to tag File:Grampian Map Brodie Castle.png as "This image of simple geometry is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain"? Bulwersator (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'd recommend asking at WP:MCQ. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] 1923 vs. 1924
Now that it's 2012, should the mentioned date of January 1, 1923 be updated to January 1, 1924? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, it's still January 1, 1923. :) Due to evolution of copyright laws in the United States, works published between 1923 and before 1963 that had a copyright notice and where copyright was renewed are protected until 95 years after publication. A work from 1923 could be in copyright as long as until 2019, since works go into public domain on the first day of the year following expiration. See [1]. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
