Wikipedia talk:Public domain

This page is for discussion about improving Wikipedia:Public domain. It is not a forum for discussion about copyright in general. For questions about whether specific works are in the public domain, please visit Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Copyright term table

I've assembled a new table giving the copyright term in the context of creation and publication dates. I tried to make the presentation more clear than the other ones I've seen; I'm posting it here first in case I made any errors. I haven't made tables yet for foreign works or architecture, but I can work on those later. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Works registered or first published in the United States

Published→ Created↓	–1922	1923–1963	1964–1977	1978–1 Mar 1989	2 Mar 1989–2002	2003–	Never
–1903	PD	95 if R and N	95 if N	S+ if N*	S+	S if D	S if D
1904–1954	PD	95 if R and N	95 if N	S+ if N*	S+	S if D or U	S if D or U
1955–1977		95 if R and N	95 if N	S+ if N*	S+	S	S
1978–				S if N*	S	S	S

Sound recordings

Published→ Created↓	15 Feb 1972–1977	1978–1 Mar 1989	2 Mar 1989–	Never
–14 Feb 1972	???	???	???	???
15 Feb 1972–	95 if N	S if N*	S	S

Green - All works are in the public domain due to copyright expiring
Yellow - Some works are in the public domain due to copyright expiring
Orange - Some works are in the public domain due to failure to conform to technicalities
Red - No works are in the public domain

Copyright term
PD - All works are in the public domain due to copyright expiring
95 - Copyright expires 95 years after publication
S - Copyright expires 70 years after author's death; but if the work is anonymous, made for hire, or the author or the author's death date is unknown, copyright expires on the earlier of 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation
S+ - The later of S and 31 Dec 2047
??? - Copyright term depends on state laws

Conditions
R - Copyright was renewed in the 28th year after publication
N - A compliant copyright notice was included
N* - A compliant copyright notice was included, or the work was registered within five years of publication
D - Author died 1954 or later
U - The work is anonymous, made for hire, or the author or the author's death date is unknown

Notes

• Works of employees of the U. S. federal government are always in the public domain regardless of the table above.
• Copyright terms for sound recordings, architecture, and works first published outside the US are different than the standard.
• Works registered up to 1977 count as published.

Sources: Cornell chart, File:PD-US table.svg, WP:PD

Two areas not particularly well covered here

(i) works by the United Nations, and its subsidiaries. (ii) digital scans of old works.

These two come together in for instance The World Digital Library, which has some connection with UNESCO (and Library of Congress).

I'm looking at a work originally written in 1521, but this is a French translation of it, from about 1525. Document itself is held at Yale University Library. My question is, what copyright restrictions are there, if any, on uploading any page, such as this page or this one to wikipedia/wikimedia?

Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sat 21:40, wikitime= 13:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The "sweat of the brow" rule applies. A photograph of a public-domain work that implies little effort to create a copy aside from getting access is hardly copyrightable. The simple snapshot isn't much of an effort, and neither is minor cropping or enhancing. What is copyrightable is a collection of photographs that implies some sophisticated selection and extensive commentary (which would make the collection a hybrid of photography and a literary effort.

Professional photography, even by a mass-market photographer, is copyrighted even if the photographer is simply an employee of the photographer with little formal training in photography. Thus wedding or baby/child pictures taken by such a photographer are copyrighted. Persons photographed effectively assign the negatives to the corporation that photographs people and pay a fee to get reproductions. The photo company has expensive equipment that people taking snapshots would not ordinarily use and has costs of transportation of a photographer, however slightly-skilled, cost the 'creator' something. A basic rule: if money is involved in creating the work and someone makes a living by doing the work, it is professional.

Turning the pages of a book (even if one gets access, which may be difficult) and clicking a shutter is not much work, so it fails the "sweat of the brow" test. It's not in the same league of complexity as writing, translating, or composing. That said, adding captions to pictures and adding such editorial content as a foreword, table of contents, and index -- and of course setting the pages for publication -- creates a copyrightable BOOK -- a literary work even if the contents are mostly pictures.Pbrower2a (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Birth records, state of Michigan

In accordance with state laws of Michigan, birth records (but not death or marriage) records held by counties are not allowed to be released to the general public for 100 years unless the person requesting the information has evidence that the person has died (such as a newspaper obituary) for the supposed protection of the person in question. Once the 100-year term has expired, the birth records are available for such uses as genealogy.

Such may be the law in other states. Pbrower2a (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

17 USC, chapters 9 and 13

The article says: "The U.S. Copyright Law is Title 17 of the United States Code (17 USC), chapters 1 through 8 and 10 through 12. Chapters 9 and 13 contain design protection laws on semiconductor chips and ship hulls that are of no interest or relevance for Wikipedia."

This is not correct. We have a wide variety of images of semiconductor chips in the various WMF projects, most notably Commons:Category:Integrated circuits. If the chips are copyrighted, then the images infringe and cannot be kept on Commons. Similarly, we have a wide variety of images of ship hulls.

Therefore, I see no reason why these two chapters of 17 USC should be treated any differently from the rest. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 15:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Those chapters don't cover images of chips and boat hulls. Chapter 9 covers mask works, a particular form of work used in the manufacture of chips under certain technologies. Chapter 13 provides a design patent-like right to prevent the making and selling of ships with protected hulls.

Neither Chapter 9 or 13 are copyright law. They happen to sit in the same volume of the US Code where the copyright law sits as a matter of convenience. TJRC (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2016 (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)

Questions

• If copyrighted materials are used for nonprofit educational purposes such as content generation in Wikipedia does it violate copyvio.
• If the material used are only factual descriptions does it violate copyvio.
• Usage of material consisting information that is commonly available and contains no originality. e.g. History. Does it violate copyvio.
• Is it a good practice to use materials that hasn't registered for any copyrights or does it violate copyvio.
• If material which is available through multiple sites for public use, is it copyvio violation.
• Using content straight from textbooks or articles with changes, is it a copyvio violation.
• Does sound-clip usage of a publicly performed song which doesn't require requires the copyright permission of a literary work come under copyvio violation.
• If a media clip used is his or her own production and the work is not registered and is uploaded to wikipedia will it be a copyvio violation.

61.1.216.137 (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)