Wikipedia talk:Public domain/Archive 2011

Archive 2005

←

Archive 2009

Archive 2010

Archive 2011

Archive 2012

Archive 2013

→

Archive 2015

how to edit

Hi,

I read the "how to edit" page and it doesn't work. The page just goes onto another page. Can anyone tell me a proper way to edit some information that is on Wicki. thanks, genealogybuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genealogybuff (talk • contribs) 02:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

PD discussion on Commons

Editors of this page may be interested in the discussion at Commons:Commons:Village pump#Copyrightability of security camera recordings.  Sandstein  20:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

PD wordmark dispute

I uploaded File:U2 3D logo.png to Commons a while ago as a PD image since it is simply a wordmark. There have been no problems with its licensing up until now, where an editor has opposed the article's FAC saying that the image is copyrighted and is incorrectly licensed. It was my understanding that typefaces are no eligible for copyright. This editor is saying that the little "splatter marks" on the image make is eligible for copyright. The wordmark was taken from a copyrighted poster, but do the small marks on the image make it eligible for copyright? I feel like there would have been a dispute about it at Commons a while ago if it was an issue, especially since it was uploaded almost 3 years ago. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of issues here. Within legislation of the USA typefaces can be protected by design patent, it follows that at least some typeface designs are therefore not in the public domain in the USA (and other states may have copyright or other intellectual property protection in place for typefaces). Secondly, even if a typeface design were in the public domain it does not follow that a logo that uses that typeface is also in the public domain - the logo itself may have copyright protection. As examples, the colour red is unprotected, but an artwork that uses red may have protection, likewise all the words in the English language are unprotected, but combinations of words (in composition) may be protected. That is to say that protected works may be formed of protected and unprotected elements - but the works as a whole may be subject to copyright protection.

I don't know the specific reason that an editor has intervened in this issue, but hope you can see the logic of the issues. 80.177.25.71 (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the 1 January 1923 cut-off date?

I can see many references here to works prior to 1 January 1923 being in the public domain, but there does not appear to be any reference or link as to how that date is defined. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.25.71 (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Dates as an example

Would anyone mind if we added "dates" (yes, as in the day, month, and year that something happened) as another example to the existing sentence "As a result of this doctrine, addresses, phone numbers, most scientific data, sports scores, the results of polls, and similar facts are exempt from copyright"?

I've got an editor who appears genuinely concerned that if he copies the date off a photograph of a grave marker or other type of sign, then he's violating the photographer's copyright. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I've never heard of anyone thinking a date could be copyrighted. Regardless, a photographer can't claim copyright over someone else's text just because he photographed it anyway, so it sounds like your editor is operating under many different layers of confusion. postdlf (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Unpublished work and images

Im hoping for some guidance with some old photos which have been uploaded on wiki. Lets say a photgraph exists taken in the early 1900s. The image is a family photo (property of the family of the photographer). Subsequently in 1977 (the photos with no documentation that they have been published before) are then donated to a muesuem archive and are subsequently available for anyones use after that point. There is no documentation that exists showing the photograph to be published at least 10 years after it was donated to the muesuem. Is the image in the public domain or not? It would seem based on my interpretation of this policy they are not. Any help with clarification would be great, thanks Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

White House Enterainers not PD

At WT:FSC, I made a query about whether people hired or requested to perform at the White House are considered employees and was informed that they are considered contractors. Can we confirm that performances like the following are not PD: Joan Baez performs "We Shall Overcome" and Yolanda Adams performs "How Great Thou Art".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"We Shall Overcome" wasn't written by Joan Baez and is presumably still copyrighted, so at best that video is still a derivative recorded performance of the copyrighted song. "How Great Thou Art" is in the public domain, however. So if the White House recorded someone performing a public domain song, wouldn't that recording also be in the public domain as a work of the federal government? I don't know that a performer could have a copyright in a recording they didn't make of their performance of a song they don't own, as a performance isn't a "writing." postdlf (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought We Shall Overcome was a spiritual from the Negro slaves. I apologize. How do I find consensus on the PD works and what licensing tags are relevant?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, Here is a rendition of an old work that also must be PD: James Earl Jones presents Othello's defense at the senate--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that if WhiteHouse.gov employees produce these videos of performances of PD material in their normal course of business they are PD. I also think that the White House Entertainers are probably a great source of video material for WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that this is PD per my reply at the FS thread for this. I will go look for a citation to back up my statement. Until that time, I strongly advise against uploading more of this sort of content. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A work that is performed can be copyrighted (the song being sung, the play being acted, the book being read, etc.), and a recording of a performance can be copyrighted, but can the performance in and of itself be copyrighted under U.S. copyright law (if that's what you're claiming)? It's not a "writing," not "fixed in a tangible medium" except to the extent it is embodied in the work being performed or a recording of the performance. postdlf (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It can only be included here to the extent that it is recorded, and recording is clearly a fixation if made under the authority of the performer. one minor nit: "writing" is the constitutional text covering what Congress is empowered to protect via copyright, not statutory text covering what Congress actually protects via copyright. Arguably there are more works that constitute a "writing" than constitute a "work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression." Architectural works, for example, are a form of work that constitutes a "writing" (else it could not be constitutionally protected by copyright) but did not fall under the scope of "work of authorship" until Congress added it in 1990.

Just to muddy the waters, if a live musical performance is not being recorded under the authority of the performer, but is recorded without authorization, while it would not technically be a copyright issue, it would still be an violation of the copyright-like right in § 1101. Thus, assuming even if the work is not "fixed" in a copyright sense (under the authority of the performer), a recording of Joan Baez singing a song would be a violation of this performance right; although a recording of Kristi Yamaguchi reading her children's book would not; but in both cases it would be an infringment of the work being sung or read, if still under copyright. TJRC (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I am asking WP:NFC for their opininon on this while I keep on looking --Guerillero | My Talk 01:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

TJRC, I think 17 U.S.C. 1101 actually gives us an answer: against someone who records a musical performance without the consent of the performer, the same remedies are available "to the same extent as an infringer of copyright," which means that it's not actually copyright infringement. Which means that a performer does not have copyright in the performance itself if an unauthorized recording is not copyright infringement, which means that a consensual recording of a performance of a public domain work is only subject to the copyright of the recorder, which here is the federal government and so is public domain, in the case of the performances of "How Great Thou Art" and Othello. postdlf (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's why I referred to it as a copyright-like right. If it is not fixed, in a copyright sense, it may fall under § 1101. But I take the performer to be the author (or at least an author) of the performance, and if the performance is fixed under her authority it is her copyright, either entirely or jointly. I can see your view that the authorization of the performer is merely consent taking it out of the purview of § 1101, and the person doing the recording is the author (and therefore, the copyright owner, if eligible) but I don't think you can be certain of that. It would be interesting to see if there's case law on this. I think, actually, both the performer and fixer contribute authorship in a typical case, which would result in a joint work. TJRC (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

{{PD-USGov}} does not apply to contractors. That's not why the law was written and that's not what it says. It applies only to regular wage/salary employees doing official work as part of their jobs. Contractors are not regular wage/salary employees for this purpose, and their performances are not considered official in the same way that a performance of the Navy Band would be. Sorry. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

When PD-USGov protects a work, does it mean the photo, video or audio work is done by the government or the subject of that work?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It means the work was made by that government in their capacities as a government agent. Just like the files we have that are by the US Navy. The subject of the work agrees to forfeit their rights in being the subject of that particular work. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:54pm • 02:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this is just getting confused again: being the subject of a work has nothing to do with being the author of a work, and copyright is concerned with authors. Let's stick to the thread above, where we've already separated out the issues of the underlying work, the performer, and the recorder of that performance. postdlf (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify.

• {{PD-USGov}} is a production level release. In other words, the final product, be it a document, photograph, or performance, is released into the public domain and cannot be copyrighted. It does not protect draft or work-in-progress materials, and does not protect materials that are not formally publicly published (i.e. classified documents).
• Secondly, it only applies to the work of government employees themselves. Every sound file is composed of two parts, each treated separate by copyright. The first part is the original composition, which is copyrighted by the composer. The second part is the performance of that composition. It is copyrighted by the performer. A musical performance could realistically be copyrighted by two parties, and often they are. In order for Wikipedia to consider something PD, both parts must be PD.

Sven Manguard Wha? 03:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• The original composition (the work being performed) is not copyrighted in all of these videos; "How Great Thou Art" and Othello are public domain. I am disputing that the performer has copyright in the performance, as I have laid out above. postdlf (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sven, First you say that theeir are two parts to the copyright and then proceed to explain three parts. It seems like there is 1. Composition, 2. Performance, 3. photographing/filming/recording. My question is does PD-Gov mean the the work of the government represented part 2 or part 3, which I don't think you have yet clarified. With the Military Bands both 2 and 3 are the government, but do both 2 and 3 have to be the govenment for the work to be PD gov?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

PD-Gov applies iff all parts were made by a federal employee during the course of their duties. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

So it does not apply when the composition is not by a federal employee? Or by all parts do you mean that if recording has an intro not by the government, like the Miller Center recordings it is not PD?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

- Sorry about that TTT. This is immensely difficult to explain, and I'm not particularly well read in on the situation at hand. I spent an hour writing several different explanations, but they are all too confusing, and I don't want to leave you even more confused. What you need is someone that's done these sorts of explanations before, and that person needs to start from scratch and teach it to you step by step.

- The short answer, which won't help you, is that the most common thing we deal with at Wikipedia is one claimant or two. In cases like File:La Plus Que Lente.ogg, there is the composer, Debussy, and there is the performer, La Pianista. However La Pianista also recorded and published her own work, which simplifies things. In recordings of presidential speeches, there might be more than two claimants. There is the speech itself (written by speechwriters and officially credited to the president), that's one. There is the performance/reading of that speech, done by the President. Technically that's a second component. Third, there is the recording and broadcast of that speech (in this case done by White House staff). Because all three components are government employees doing official duties, the three components are not really handled separately.

- However let's change the circumstances a bit. Suppose that it's a play, not a speech, and it's written by a playwright "Sven Manbard". The play itself is copyrighted by Sven Manbard. Then suppose an actor group "Community Players" decides to perform that play. That performance is copyrighted by the Community Players. However if the person that records that performance is not the Community Players, but say "National Broadcaster", the recording itself can be copyrighted. That's three separate copyright holders. Almost every file currently on Wikipedia has either one or two copyright holders, however more than two are possible. In theory, there is no upper limit.

- So the answer to the first question is: Yes, there are three claimants/parts in this case. Each is treated separately. Not all three have to be PD-Gov for the work to be PD, however all three parts must be free use for the file to be free use. (If you look at the license section of File:La Plus Que Lente.ogg, you'll see that there are two seperate licenses, but both are free use, so the file is free use.)

- As to the Miller Center specifically, the recordings are actually government recordings. What the Miller Center does is that it collects public domain material already in the Library of Congress and makes it more accessable. They don't themselves hold copyright over any of the things you've uploaded. They do create broadcast programs for PBS, and those they copyright, however those are not on the Miller Center website and are not on Wikipedia.

- I hope this helped at least a little. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

At issue here are two types of files:

1. Yolanda Adams performs "How Great Thou Art". PD material, PD production, questionable performance. No indication of copyright surrender by Ms. Adams.
2. James Earl Jones presents Othello's defense at the senate. PD material, PD production, questionable performance. Clear indication by Whitehouse.gov that the file they have posted is in the public domain, suggesting that the performer has authorized surrender of his performance.

Is that correct?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna slap someone. Probably should be me. Took me about half a second to find the answers to these. All I had to do was follow my own standard investigative plan. I'll detail that for you below. In the mean time;

• Per http://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright, the Yolanda Adams file is Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. (The hymn is PD-old-100, the performance is CC-BY-3.0, the recording is PD-USGov.)
• Per the in-description text, the James Earl Jones file is Public Domain (the play is PD-old-100, the performance is assumable to be PD-release, the recording is PD-USGov.)

This all could have been simpler if I started at this point. Shoulda, coulda, woulda, didn't. Oh well. I'll help with the templates as reperations. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am now unwatching this page. If there are any significant developments, ping me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sven's Standard Investigative Plan

This is generally the process I use every time. Step 1) Look for a link that says something like "Copyright Information" in it. ↳ Sadly, far too few sites do this. For smaller sites, this won't be a page, but there might be a line about copyright somewhere near the bottom. Same general principal. ↦ This is the broad brushstrokes step. If there is a page or line with this information, it gives you a great starting point. Many sites will use wording like "except where otherwise noted it is XXXXX". This is why it's still important to get to at least step two before drawing a conclusion. Step 2) Look at the page with the file embeded in it, if you're lucky, it'll give copyright status right there in the text. ↳ Again, this is a luxury, not a norm. The more professional the site, the more likely you'll have this. Some sites will have text in the description, such as "This work is in the public domain, please credit XXXX" or "©XXXX". Flickr and Picassa have little images in the corner of the page where users set their status. ↦ Even if the site has a broad "Everything here is XXXX" statement, as a general rule, if there is licensing information specific to a single file, it trumps the sitewide statement. Step 3) If neither steps 1 or 2 yield enough information, but the law is clear, follow the law. ↳ Sometimes, you just don't get anything. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, assume all files are copyrighted by 'someone' and therefore not free use. The burden of proof is always on proving that a file is not copyrighted, and that burden lies with the uploader. There are a few general rules, such as that certain things cannot be copyrighted (geometric shapes, basic text, chemical diagrams, etc.), and that copyright expires (term varies by country). Prolific uploaders and file workers just pick up on these after seeing and working with them enough. Insane people (like me) will read the summary page on Commons that lists copyright law by country. It's an acquired skill, easier to learn by observing/doing than to learn by being explained to. ↳ Note that there is an inverse hierarchy of licensing; When dealing with copyright, files can always become less restrictive, but almost never more restrictive. Observe: If something is in the public domain, people cannot copyright it, add usage stipulations to it, etc. PD is the lowest (most free) spot in the hierarchy. In the middle are the various forms of free use licenses, most commonly the Creative Commons licenses. If a file is released with a CC license, it can't go back up in the hierarchy to full copyright, but it can go lower, to Public Domain. At the top is copyright, which is a pain. Both CC and © can add usage stipulations, however as a general rule, © has more of them, and more involve money. In short, no matter what I say or do, I legally can't force you to use in a specific way or pay me for something once the right to control those things has been given away or has expired. ↦ What the law says always trumps every other factor. A website can say that the Gettysburg Address is copyrighted, but legally, it can't be. When you're sure that the law is in conflict with site text, go with the law. Step 4) If neither steps 1 or 2 yield enough information, and the law is unclear, call someone. (Big webpages usually have someone on staff that handles the files as part of their main duties, and would have some or all of the copyright information. Barring that, they might also have an in staff lawyer.) ↳ This can sometimes be very easy, and can sometimes be very painful. Keep WP:CONTRIB on hand, if you wind up in step 4 often enough, you're going to wind up using that page a lot. It's worth it though, to me at least, to make this kind of effort. ↦ Pro tip: Especially when dealing with smaller sites, blogs, and Flickr type sites, take claims of ownership with a grain of salt. Use the TinEye app or something similar if your gut says that something is probably "borrowed". Most people do not know copyright law or are not concerned with it. Wikipedia has to operate at a higher standard than that. Hope this helps, Sven Manguard Wha? 07:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sven, I know this is academic at this point, but it's going to come up again. I still haven't seen your explanation as to why you think a performance is itself copyrightable apart from the work being performed, or a recording of that performance. As I explained above, a performance is not "fixed in a tangible medium," and so does not qualify as a "writing" that is protectable by copyright in the U.S. 17 U.S.C. § 102a. Congress has instead had to go out of its way to indirectly protect unfixed performances, as it did with 17 U.S.C. § 1101 to prohibit unauthorized recordings of musical performances (an anti-bootlegging statute, to bring U.S. law into compliance with TRIPs), and at 17 U.S.C. § 101 ("A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is 'fixed' for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission.") to allow broadcasters to protect their live programs if and only if they simultaneously record it while broadcasting (also considered a "performance"). See Cohen, et al, Copyright in a Global Information Economy, pp. 72-73 ("The first sentence of the definition of 'fixed' creats a problem for live transmissions...To solve this problem while still retaining a fixation requirement in U.S. copyright law, Congress chose a narrow, situation-specific solution...") Nowhere in the copyright statute does it define "performance" in and of itself as a copyrightable subject matter. The text I cited also notes, at p. 71, that other countries, such as Belgium, France, and Germany, grant copyright protection "as soon as it is in a form in which others can perceive it, regardless of whether it is also fixed...Such works might include, for example, improvisational performances and off-the-cuff lectures..." So again, under U.S. copyright law, a work being performed can be copyrighted as a written work, and a recording of a performance can be copyrighted, but the performance in and of itself cannot be. postdlf (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I gather that performers' rights regimes in many countries follow the 1961 Rome Convention, or at least those elements that were included in Article 14 of the 1994 TRIPS agreement. These do not endow performances with copyright protection as such, but give performers protection against any fixation, copying, broadcast, and communication to the public of their performance that they have not consented to (with several allowable exceptions that countries may enact - e.g. for research, teaching or private use, or short excerpts). Most of these protections last at least 50 years (from the year of the performance or fixation). --Avenue (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

...and under U.S. law, 17 U.S.C. § 1101, that only applies to live musical performances, and only then to prohibit recording without consent. It does not impose any further restrictions on usage or copying of that recording so long as consent was given in the first place to make it. So even if Sven hadn't found the copyright license notices he did, the recordings of the public domain works being performed would have also been public domain as works of the U.S. government, without any consideration for the performers once they gave the White House consent to record them performing. postdlf (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

My responses below haven't addressed your point about § 1101 only applying to live musical performances, which is correct. So § 1101 wouldn't apply to the spoken performance by James Earl Jones, and unless there is some other relevant statute I'm unaware of, he would have no legal rights in the U.S. over recordings of his performance. His consent or otherwise should make no difference, and the recording would be in the public domain as a work of the U.S. government (and because the underlying written work is too old to attract copyright). --Avenue (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

17 U.S.C. § 1101 appears to separately prohibit (1) fixation without consent, (2) transmission or public communication without consent, and (3) distribution, selling, renting or trafficking any copy without consent. I think (3) could hinder commercial redistribution of these recordings, at least. The section also states that it doesn't preempt state laws. Would any D.C. laws apply here? --Avenue (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

(3) only applies to distribution, etc., of copies made without consent, not distribution, etc. without consent of copies made with consent. postdlf (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that is not clear to me from the text of § 1101. (3) applies to the distribution etc without consent of "any copy or phonorecord fixed as described in paragraph (1)", and to me that passage seems to just refer to the part of (1) that says "fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance in a copy or phonorecord", without implying anything about consent. The requirement for consent is laid out in the preceding part of § 1101 (a), not in paragraph (1). I see that (1) later refers to reproduction of "an unauthorized fixation", and I don't see why the legislators wouldn't have used similar language in (3) (e.g. "any unauthorized copy") if they had your interpretation in mind. Perhaps I am missing something, though. --Avenue (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Fixed" isn't a term particular to this section, so if you exclude from "as described in paragraph (1)" the fact that it's referring to an unauthorized fixation, then you have an even bigger question about why the legislators would use that language. It's typical for a statute to refer back to an earlier provision and you need to read the whole thing in context when you reimport it into the later provision. The only sensible reading of "as described in paragraph (1)" is to mean a fixation without authorization. Otherwise, you have the absurd result that under (3) a performer could authorize a recording but nevertheless (by statute, mind you, not by contract, which any parties could decide) prohibit distribution of that recording without further authorization from the performer, but the performer could not prohibit copying of that same authorized recording (as paragraph (1) just prohibits copying of an unauthorized recording). Alas, I don't have LEXIS or WestLaw access right now, so I can't do an easy search for case law that would confirm my interpretation, but it makes the most sense, and it would be consistent with copyright law overall, in that an author of a work (here, the maker of an authorized recording of a performance) has the full bundle of rights in that work (to copy, distribute, display, etc.) unless he contracts them away. The point of (3) is to target those who sell bootlegs, not those who sell non-bootleg authorized recordings without additional authorization to do so (however much Garth Brooks would want it otherwise), which would be a pretty big carve-out of the first-sale doctrine, 17 U.S.C. § 109, which would certainly be recognized in that provision if that were the case. postdlf (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I was taking the "as described in paragraph (1)" to refer more to the "sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance" part of paragraph (1), but the word order does lend itself more to your interpretation. Sorry, I guess I got that wrong. Your interpretation is also more consistent with what I understand of other countries' approaches, and the aim of dealing with bootlegs. (I gather from the link you gave that the Garth Brooks situation was resolved more on anti-trust issues than performers' rights, but that's probably beside the point.) --Avenue (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone's legal credentials here, but I'd email gbrighamwikimedia.org – we have a lawyer for a reason :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

File:March_Slav.ogg

File:March_Slav.ogg has been nominated at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:March Slav.ogg. Please come and comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

French military personnel official photo portraits

I have translated an article on General Valerie Andre from the French Wikipedia. It would be nice to add a photo, I'm thinking the standard military photo portrait. It is available on the Web, via the French Department of Defense Website.

What copyright rules apply to such official military portraits? In the US it would certainly be public domain, as a federal government-isued photo. I don't know about other countries however (France in this case). Anyone know?

OttawaAC (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Congressional Record?

I've asked this question at WT:C and am reprinting it here. I was asked at my talk page about the copyright status of this note from Ester Jusuf in the Congressional Record. I'm unsure, but a bit concerned about it. Congressional Record About says, "With the exception of copyrighted articles, there are no restrictions on the republication of material from the Congressional Record." Ester Jusuf is evidently an Indonesian human rights attorney, so she is not a US federal employee, and this is published in the "Extension of Remarks" section and thus was not presented before Congress. If you have feedback, please provide it there and thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for PD-Nepal

Dear admin, would it be possible to create a PD-Nepal template? Something like: This work is in the public domain in Nepal because its term of copyright has expired. According to the Copyright Act 2002, applied art and photographic work shall be protected until 25 years from the year of preparation. Here is the link to the copyright act: http://www.nepalcopyright.gov.np/pdf/The%20Copyright%20Act.pdf. See Chapter 3, No. 14 (5), Page 8. Karrattul (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Stand for India

I would like to discuss the stand on Indian Government publications. I found some pictures on the portal india.gov.in.. should this be regarded as public domain? Rahulghose (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

I've replied there. TJRC (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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)