Wikipedia talk:File copyright tags/Public domain

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

because?[edit]

is thisImage:Silvershiner.gif a good because? Is there a better way to document this? Pdbailey 03:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You should get the maintainer to send a statement to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org explaining the licensing terms of the photo. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Pdbailey 13:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No copyright tag on USG site[edit]

I'm going over the images uploaded by one user who didn't care much where an image was from so long as it was on a United States Government (USG) server. In deed, some were clearly copyrighted (and licensed by the USG under a license wikipedia would not accept), some were public domain and clearly labeled. The set that vexes me are those that appear on a USG server without any notice. Can I consider these to be PD? Pdbailey 13:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably...can you give me an example? —Remember the dot (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Would suggest moving this discussion to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions (more people are probably watching that page). Megapixie 01:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Greek copyright law[edit]

Does anyone have any information on Public Domain in Greece? If so, please create a tag, and place it on Image:Greek.destroyer.bas.georgios.jpg. Thanks. tiZom(2¢) 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally issues regarding PD are not very clear in Greece and most web publishers are not educated about copyright issues. For the specific picture, it comes from the website of the Hellenic Navy, http://www.hellenicnavy.gr . The HN allows free reuse of material from their site provided it is attributed to them. However they do not explain their position on the issue of derivative work. In greek WP there is a special template for media from the HN: el:Πρότυπο:ΠΔΕΠΝ.
Sv1xv (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Help???[edit]

Can someone help me with this. I can't figure out why the bot keeps tagging it. I used a pre-1923 PD tag and then removed the warnings and the bot keeps putting them back. Long levi 07:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Long levi Banned. FYI, Longlevi has just been found to be a sockpuppet of a banned user named Tecmobowl, who has used socks in the past. Accordingly, he has also been banned indefinitely. See [1]--Epeefleche 00:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template added[edit]

NOTE: A PARALLEL DISCUSSION CAN BE FOUND AT Wikipedia_talk:Public_domain#Another_PD_Template_added.

I have added {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} to the page, with related category. The 1993 EU copyright directive explicitly directs that an author (e.g. photographer) must disclose her or his identity in conjunction with publishing an image in order to obtain copyright protection for 70years p.m.a.. Lacking such public disclosure of the identity of the author of a photograph (the photographer or assignee of the photographer's rights) in conjunction with its publication, the author's right to claim copyright lapses 70 years after the first publication of the image. Presently this would be all photos published prior to August, 1937 (70 years ago), but published without an explicit public disclosure of who was the photographer. See Article 1, §§1-4 of the 1993 EU copyright directive. ... Kenosis 13:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how that interacts with US law and subsequent treaties. But it does place a rather high burden of proof on the uploader:
3. In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, the term of protection shall run for seventy years after the work is lawfully made available to the public. However, when the pseudonym adopted by the author leaves no doubt as to his identity, or if the author discloses his identity during the period referred to in the first sentence, the term of protection applicable shall be that laid down in paragraph 1.
So the uploader has to prove that not only did the publication not state authorship - but that all subsequent publications of the image did not as well. It seems like most uploaders wouldn't do more than a cursory search for subsequent (or prior) publications of the image. This is probably more trouble than it's worth as a result. Megapixie 14:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The burden is not on the uploader to show proof beyond any doubt-- even accused murderers get a more relaxed standard than that in most civilized nations. A reasonable search that gives rise to a good-faith belief that an image had been published without claim of authorship can easily be rebutted by someone showing a claim of publicly disclosed authorship. If someone proves publicly disclosed authorship that occurred prior to the expiration of the 70 years, the standard immediately becomes life of the author plus 70 years. You can't expect people to endlessly speculate about the possibility that there might be authors out there that might have taken, say, an 1857 photo at age 20, lived until 1937 and still conceivably might be under some kind of retroactive copyright protection. And you can't have "70 years p.m.a" with an anonymous photographer-- somebody needs to show a publicly disclosed author to trigger the 70 years-pma clause. The EU convention is quite explicit and direct about this. Again, see Article 1, §§1-4 of the 1993 EU copyright directive. If the author's name isn't publicly disclosed in conjunction with the publication of the photgraph, the photographer or assignees thereof lose the right to claim copyright after 70 years. If no author was publicly disclosed, there's no copyright, period. Users who have a reasonable, good-faith basis to use this template are quite easily rebutted by a showing that it's unreasonable to believe the template with respect to a particular image, or by a simple citation to a publication where there's an actual credit showing the required public claim of authorship. ... Kenosis 15:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC) ...

For the present, the category is Category:Public domain images no longer eligible for claim of authorship. No doubt this will get discussed as it goes along, and if necessary, adapted or moved to another title according to what the experience turns out to be with the template and the category. ... Kenosis 15:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the recently placed demand for concrete non-web-based proof of publication data, and the demand for the uploader to provide additional reasoning and particular forms of citations added here: I removed the imbedded flag this diff and the two that follow for the following non-exhastive set of reasons.
 :First, the reasoning is already disclosed in the template. Asking for the "reasoning for the reasoning" prior to seeing the image and examining the required disclosure of the source is excessive, and none of the other standard templates presently do so.
 :Second, a demand in advance for concrete proof of absence on an image claimed by the uploader to have been published prior to 1938 without visible claim of authorship is unreasonable. A reasonable search, appropriate source information, whether web-based or otherwise, is typically quite adequate for PD-50, PD-70 and PD-100, and, unless the overall approach is changed wrt all the general templates, it should be adequate for this template as well.
 :Third, the presumed good faith statement by the uploader is typically applied across the board with these templates, at least as of today. If the application of the template is deemed to be unreasonable, there are convenient deletion options already in place such as the CFSDs and IfDs, available to be brought to bear to quickly correct such issues.
 :Fourth, the expectation in the inserted flag (the red triangular "nuvola" sign) demonstrates an absence of good faith, a complete misinterpretation of WP:VER (read it again, please) and I think merely attempts to make quick work of deletions prior to seeing good reason to propose such deletions with respect to particular images. Even the PD-100 template, which could easily be applied to images as early as the mid-19th Century, doesn't make this kind of negative presumption at the outset. There are other reasons to avoid an imbedded flag on this template too, but I don't have time to go into them. Suffice it to say that there are already processes in place to deal with unreasonable or questionable uses of this template.
....... I think, though, that it might be extremely useful to set up some additional "small text" in the template inviting anyone who has additional source information, whether supportive of or contradictory to the assertion of "no public authorship" for a pre-1938 photo, to make a note providing additional evidence on the image page. ... Kenosis 13:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing todo with WP:AGF or WP:VER it has everything todo with Wikipedia:Image use policy in particular: "Before you upload an image, make sure that ... You can prove that the image is in the public domain.". AGF does not apply to matters of copyright - if someone copies and pastes a webpage into wikipedia with no explaination it's going to get deleted. It the job of the uploading user to provide a source and reasoning to why it was never published with attribution. We are talking about images from 1923-1937 where it's fairly likely that the creators life+70 copyright would still hold if they ever even ONCE published the image with attribution. Additionally this would only hold for images published in the EU and not published in the US. I suspect the interaction with US copyright law may make the reasoning behind the template invalid anyway - Hirtle suggests that the date range may only be 1923-1926 since GATT and URAA kicked in 1996 to extend protection. I have reverted the template back giving a more veiled warning. But let's be clear - without clear information about the source and a reasoning as to why it was never published with accreditation I'm going to make sure these images get deleted. Megapixie 14:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure, eliminate the reference to AGF if one wishes. But the verification criteria apply across the board, to all of the general templates. Maybe it would be appropriate for me or someone else to proceed to install the nuvola and a similar warning on the other PD templates as well. Anyway, the last edit here makes a great deal more sense, IMO, since it's consistent with the general requirments and makes no excessive demands in advance. ... Kenosis 15:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I still don't understand is the interaction with US law. Can works which are in the public domain in their home country in Europe still be copyrighted in the United States? Haukur 16:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

See, e.g., this synopsis, in which the category currently under discussion is incorporated into "WORKS PUBLISHED OUTSIDE THE US" > "Works Published Abroad Before 1978 Without Compliance with US Formalities" > "1923 through 1977" > "In the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996". AFAIK, works in the public domain in their home country that were published over 70 years ago where the photograph wasn't attributed to a photographer (the "author"), which have become public domain after 1996, would also be in the public domain in the U.S. ... Kenosis 16:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

{{PD-US-1923-abroad}}[edit]

I've added this template to the art section, because it is applicable. If there's any problem, please remove it and discuss here. Tyrenius 03:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this now, as it is covered by {{PD-art-US}}. I've changed the description for the latter, as the wording on the template just says published before 1923 (not published in US before 1923). Tyrenius 03:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Help with images from movie trailers[edit]

I have a question about images from old movie trailers. If I take a screenshot from a movie trailer of a movie that came out before 1977, is it in the public domain? Or is it for movie trailers from before 1964? And does it matter if a person's name is on the screen with them or would it be copyrighted as a screenshot from the movie if there was no name? For instance, if the photo in Rosalind Russell's article didn't have her name on it in the trailer and instead was a shot from the movie but still part of the trailer, would I have to tag that as a copyrighted screenshot or would it still count as public domain because it was in the trailer?

Hopefully that question made sense, and any help would be appreciated!

Ilampsurvivor5 01:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer and so I can't express a formal legal opinion regarding this particular example, but I do not see anything in US copyright law that would cause all movie trailers made before 1964 to be considered to be in the public domain. The copyright clock in the United States starts at the time of creation for unpublished works or at the time of publication for published works. Movie trailers were rarely published: they were exhibited — the film production companies always retained ownership of the trailer film. They were rented or loaned to theaters through distributors exclusively for "exhibition" and were not sold. More recent copies of old trailers have been published under copyrights asserted as part of collective works on video tapes or DVDs. --Danorton (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
If only it were that simple. From 17 USC 101: "... The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. ..." (But it also says "A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.") Showing the trailer in a cinema or on TV fits the definition of "public display", also in 17 USC 101. Methinks releasing or loaning trailers to movie theaters and TV stations would qualify as "publication" under 17 USC 101, unless all these movie theaters and TV stations were owned by the film company. Lupo 10:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Translation of tags[edit]

Is there a place to address translation of copyright tags? On ro: there's a ro:Template:DP-oferit which as far as I can tell means PD was offered by the owner. Until the translation is in place, the Move-to-commons assistant correctly refuses to operate on the tagged image.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Patents?[edit]

Is there a tag specific for diagrams in Patents? According to WP:PD :

Descriptions (including diagrams) in patent applications in the U.S. are "published into the public domain" by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office [2]. Portions may contain the non-obligatory notice of copyright © or mask work Ⓜ protection, but the patent applicant must state in the text of the description that the owner of the rights in the protected part agrees to allow anyone to make facsimile reproductions of those portions of the description, but otherwise reserves all rights 37 CFR § 1.71(e).


Thanks. Dspark76 (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


Nevermind, i just found Template:PD-US-patent, I'll add it to the list... Dspark76 (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Original art owned by me[edit]

Say I own an original drawing by some famous author. Can I put this in public domain and upload the image to wikipedia and attach the public domain tag? Let us assume this image has already been published in magazines. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends on when the author died. §hep¡Talk to me! 19:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Really? How come? I own the original art. Artists keep the publication rights, including of art they sold? Vincent Lextrait (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Assuming the author was not an employee of tha magazine, in which case the magazine would own the copyright, the magazine would have acquired the right to print the image, but the author still reserves all other rights. --NE2 02:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
If you buy an original one-of-a-kind artwork, by default you obtain all rights to the work, including the right to release copies of images thereof into the public domain? Not according to http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Nov/1/127856.html, or (authoritatively in the US) http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#202. Surprised me!--Elvey (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
That is super clear, and super surprising. Thanks a lot! Vincent Lextrait (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

{{PD-Webpage}}[edit]

I ran across this template while attempting to clear some of the backlog at Category:Category needed. Has this been approved or should I bring it up at WP:TfD? —Ashanda (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it could apply for things like web screenshots of U.S. federal government sites, but that would be a little redundant to {{PD-USGov}}. Kelly hi! 16:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
All uses of the template are on images of screenshots of different browsers' rendering of the Acid3 test. I'm corresponding with the operators of the test to pin down the exact copyright status of the images. I'm guessing in the end we'll probably end up with one of the usual free licenses on the images, so in the long run, I'd have to say the template is indeed redundant to existing templates. Once I get the licensing of the images using it straightened out, I'll probably bring it up at WP:TfD. —Ashanda (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

{{PD-PubMed}}[edit]

This template is empty and it is listed as a copyright tag. It should be created or removed from the list.--Sdrtirs (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Discussed here. Doesn't seem to be used.--Elvey (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Published in the Public Domain?[edit]

What template should be used for works that were published in the public domain to begin with, or published as "anti-copyright"? Are these the same thing?

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anrchcydinop.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Evasion_cover.jpg

These are covers of books both published as anti-copyright. Right now they both have non-free templates.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-copyright —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnissley (talkcontribs) 16:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

With respect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Evasion_cover.jpg, according to Evasion (book), 'The book is licensed under the following idiosyncratic terms: "Excluding all corporations, the text from this book may be reproduced without permission in any form and quantity, by any means necessary."' This is not a public domain declaration. It excludes corporations. Put another way, it is a license under which the copyright owner is asserting its copyright as against any corporation. Certainly not PD. Because the Wikipedia Foundation is a corporation, it is not covered by the license, and should continue to treat the book as copyrighted. In addition, the license is limited to the text of the book, and does not include the cover. Even if Wikipedia were to be covered by the license to the text, the cover would still have to be treated as copyrighted and under fair use.
With respect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anrchcydinop.gif, there is no information about any purported public domain dedication in Anarchy in the Age of Dinosaurs, so I can't guess at its status. TJRC (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

PD-laws[edit]

I'm planning to make and add PD-court under PD-USGov - "the public record of any court case is in the public domain". This page has no entry for such records. I believe all court filings are public records, and therefore public domain (for example, all the court filings posted on thesmokinggun.com). Evidence: "the public record of any court case [is] in the public domain" according to public domain, with a citation. --Elvey (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not all public records are public domain. Records of US Federal courts, however, are public domain because they are the work of the US Federal government. Records of other courts are not necessarily public domain. —teb728 t c 01:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC) ps. I don't find your evidence quote either in the Public domain article or at the baconsrebellion link. —teb728 t c 01:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Ah it is at Wikipedia:Public domain. —teb728 t c 01:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you disagreeing with the statement "the public record of any court case is in the public domain"? If so, do you have a source? Note: I'm only making a claim about public COURT records. Also, how are the works of private parties who file papers in federal court cases 'the work of the US Federal government'? That doesn't make any sense to me. --Elvey (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
According to footnote #6 at Wikipedia:Public domain and the baconsrebellion link you cite above all court decisions are PD. —teb728 t c 01:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. So if "the public record of any court case is in the public domain" is not a true statement, then I don't think there's any need for PD-court, but public domain needs editing. Plan tabled. I'll see about editing Wikipedia:public domain. Glad I asked for help. Thanks again. --Elvey (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think PD-court could still be useful for covering decisions of all the non-US Federal court decisions. Hmm...--Elvey (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps something more general: According to footnote #6 at Wikipedia:Public domain edicts of government generally are PD under US law. —teb728 t c 04:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Something like, and perhaps replacing, PD-NZSection27 seems like a good idea. Proposal: PD-edicts: edicts of government generally are PD under US law. w/Footnote: As Wikipedia is in the US, US law (reference to that ref #6) applies, overriding any crown copyright. However, the common meaning of 'edict' doesn't seem to be as broad as needed for the tag we want to. PD-law? PD-regulations? I'm going to bow out at this point. This really seems to need an IP expert's attention, and I'm not one. Hopefully someone will run with the ball.-Elvey
Content of ref #6, for convenience: "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments." - § 206.01 of Compendium II of the US Copyright Office.--Elvey (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

more info - found some common and case law - while it's all explicitly about ACCESS, not COPYRIGHT, it access is meaningless without the ability to publish the public record: --Elvey

A. The Public Has a Presumptive Right of Access to Litigation-Related Documents
The right of public access to litigation-related documents has three sources: the rules of discovery, Federal common law, and the First Amendment. Each of these sources provides important reasons for unsealing the Sealed Documents.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]t is well-established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing cases). This presumption may be overridden only when there is “good cause” for protecting documents from disclosure. See id. (citing Rule 26(c)).
...
When a document is not merely a fruit of discovery but has become a part of the court record, the common law’s “strong presumption in favor of access” to court documents comes into play. Hagestad v. Tragessser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995); see also San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102. The United States Supreme Court recognized this common law right of access in Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Although Nixon involved records in a criminal case, the courts of appeals have uniformly held that the right of access applies to the records of both civil and criminal cases. See San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102.
- - MOTION TO UNSEAL RECORDS IN RYAN V. CARL May 13, 2002

Back to this again. I've done this as a next step to creating an appropriate tag/template.--Elvey (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
"Right of access" is not the same thing as "public domain": just because you can get your hands on a copy of a work doesn't mean you can re-use that work for whatever purposes you want. Also, "public" and "public domain" are not the same thing. --Carnildo (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Carnildo, I'm already thoroughly aware of those things - thanks to the participants in the above discussion. Is it your contention that public court records that are not in the public domain should never be posted to Wikipedia? Surely not, and if not, there needs to be an appropriate tag for them. Right now, I find there isn't one, a shortcoming I'm trying to rectify. Or do you think each one needs to be accompanied by an individualized fair use rationale? I think there's a place for a tag/template for this category of item. Please explain where you're coming from more fully/be a little more patient with me.--Elvey (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, would you object to a tag for edicts of government, since they are not copyrightable?--Elvey (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Edicts of government are generally covered by existing variants of the {{PD}} tag (if nothing else, {{PD-because}} can be used for absolutely everything in the public domain). Court records that are not in the public domain are covered by the non-free content rules and in the unlikely event that they are suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, can be tagged with {{non-free fair use in}} or another of the non-free content tags. --Carnildo (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think PD-laws is a useful tag, and have found an image to apply it to. Since there has been no discussion on this since February, I am going to go ahead and use it. Let me know if you disagree... Pcbene (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I see it's already in use here and I see you decided not to use it here after all, but did take it out of 'beta' status. An editing accident, I guess? The former image is a document created by a US state according to statute, and the latter is a public record created by a US state. Under the current wording of PD-laws, these fall under the "similar official legal documents" category. I wish we should replace that category's wording with something less vague. Unfortunately, that's the wording from the Compendium the template links to, so figuring out how to do so is a challenge. Note: The template is still marked as being in beta on the project page this talk page is about. Under Banks v Manchester, "whatever work [judges] perform in their capacity as judges" is public domain, and "no copyright could, under the statutes passed by congress, be secured in the products of the labor done by judicial officers in the discharge of their judicial duties". Reasoning given includes that the judge is paid by the state, and that interpretations of the law binding every citizen are publishable by all.

This is an interesting topic, but has wandered far, far off field. First, you cannot confuse rights to access a document, which applies to many public records, with rights to copy, adapt, modify and amend a document, which is what true 'public domain' status denotes. Bottom line rule: whatever rights of access might exist to court records, the vast, vast majority of court records are NOT in the public domain. Copyright in them is owned by the person who authored the document, same as in any other situtaion. Also, this discussion repeatedly confuses judicial opinions - authored by judges and issued by courts - which are never subject to copyright with court 'records', such as briefs and pleadings, which are usually authored by private lawyers and published by them (when filed with the court). These are NOT public domain documents, as the author retains all of his or her rights of authorship in the work. DAJ Hilton, --91.106.63.204 (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(following up a year later) The topic of this thread has for some time been PD-laws, not PD-court-records. PD-laws is not for public records; it's only for laws/government edicts. Pcbene was right to make the nascent template I created normal. There's now a template with the same purpose but a different name (and no PD-laws) at commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-EdictGov and wikisource: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-EdictGov. We should harmonize these twothree. Which should be renamed? Which has better content? Thoughts before I pick? I think wikisource has the best content and en the best name. Everyone knows what 'laws' are; not so for 'edicts', and we encourage plain English, not jargon. But the term 'edicts' is both broader and more accurate. An in-template link of 'edict' to Edict_of_government would be good.--Elvey (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I've added in-template links of 'edict of a government' to Edict_of_government here and on commons, and here I used a template to get more eyes on the question.--Elvey (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

PD-laws and transcripts and[edit]

I was unsure whether PD-laws in fact applied to the 'Rockefeller' image, so I did some research. I found the answer; here's my data and conclusions:

  • Court reporters (and lawyers) are officers of the court but not "judicial officers".
  • The US 9th district claims that, per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, a court transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. This seems to be unconstitutional, as the reporters are federal employees, and their work product would, I presume, fall under {{PD-USGov}}. Hence, only the non-federal (state or local) case required further research.
  • http://www.exclusiverights.net/2009/08/10th-cir-court-reporters-do-not-own-a-copyright-in-the-transcripts-that-they-prepare/ archive provides plenty of citation, as well as a long legal argument with citations in a comment from a Mr Goldstein showing that copyright does not apply to court transcripts, period. Further evidence is that RECAP appears to be alive and well.
  • What about deposition transcripts? Don't know yet. --Elvey (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

PD-law[edit]

There's {{PD-law}} (no s), which says simply: This file has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder. It may be freely used unless otherwise required by law. It's unused, and I'm prodding the author about xfd'ing it.--Elvey (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's still unused; no reply so I've TfD'd it.--Elvey (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

South Korea[edit]

Anyone know if A) A PD Template exists for South Korea OR B) The amount of time images become PD in South Korea -- Esemono (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain#Other_countries shows no entry. While {{PD-South Korea}} exists, {{PD-Bulgaria}} is a redlink.--Elvey (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria[edit]

Is there a Bulgaria PD template out there? It'd really help me in keeping the PD images I upload from being deleted time after time. Boothferry (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

See above.--Elvey (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Florida Public Domain Tag?[edit]

Would it be possible to get a Florida PD tag? See Copyright status of work by the Florida governmentFrank0051 (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, found it {{PD-FLGov}}

PD UAE[edit]

How can I get a PD tag for UAE?--Renzoy16 | Contact Me 14:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Public domain?[edit]

I'm not sure how to proceed, but I don't think this picture is public domain. It says it was taken from the official Puerto Rico Senate page, but the profile of the senator doesn't have it. Also, even if the picture was there, I don't think it is covered by public domain or even fair use. Thief12 (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Are these two lists exhaustive? (i.e. vs e.g.)[edit]

In § Other countries, the descriptions of PD-BrazilGov and PD-VenezuelaGov both say "i.e.", which means "that is" (Latin, id est), although it seems that "e.g." (= "for example", exempli gratia) is at least as likely to be correct:

  • {{PD-BrazilGov}}: for "Brazilian official symbols", i.e. flags and symbols.
  • {{PD-VenezuelaGov}}: for "Venezuelan official symbols" i.e. flags and symbols.

These two abbreviations are frequently confused, and the difference is especially important in an article such as this. I'm concerned that whoever wrote these summaries may have used the wrong one. If "i.e." is correct, the template applies only to flags and symbols, but not to other official symbols such as the national Great Seal. But if it's supposed to be "e.g.", the list of covered items is not exhaustive, and other official symbols such as the national seal actually are PD. To discuss this, please {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Belize template[edit]

Why doesn't this page recognize the template for the country of Belize, which does exist at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Belize