Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-record

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:PD-US-record

[edit]

This template appears to be patently wrong:

  1. It says that only New York has copyright protection for pre-1972 sound recordings. Lots of pages suggest otherwise. For example, see this page (section 6) which tells that the state copyright to all pre-1972 sound recordings will expire in California in 2047. The document also tells that sound recordings are protected in other states, in addition to California and New York, under differing rules. This document specifically discusses the protection in ten states.
  2. In section 7 of this document, it says that non-U.S. sound recordings are eligible for URAA restoration. This would mean that any sound recording still protected in its source country on the URAA date is subject to federal copyright, unless it was published before 1923. The document also tells that "One court, however, has concluded that these recordings are still protected by the state common law copyrights that govern U.S. recordings." This implies that non-U.S. sound recordings are subject to both federal and state copyright protection, although the federal protection depends on the copyright status in the source country on the URAA date, whereas the state protection doesn't have to depend on the copyright status in the source country on the URAA date.

The way I have understood it, states are free to set their own rules for the protection of pre-1972 sound recordings, and in doing so, many states have forgot to require that copyright terms should expire, effectively meaning that more or less all sound recordings have to be assumed to be protected by copyright in the United States. Note that COM:HIRTLE doesn't list any expiration date for pre-1972 sound recordings other than 15 February 2067, so e.g. the 1923 rule doesn't apply to sound recordings. Stefan4 (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation, which currently has its headquarters in the US state of California, was founded in the US state of Florida, and operates under the law of this state. Both US states, among others, have common law copyrights, which affect even 19th-century recordings, and the protection will not expire before 2047 or 2067, depending on the state. --84.61.176.82 19:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. This template is quite old and established with previous consensus discussions. See discussions from:
-- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you tell where to find the discussions which conclude that there is consensus for the current template? The linked discussions show a clear consensus that the current template is wrong but that no one knows how to correct it. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how I or other people read it. See this discussion where User:Jafeluv says "See this discussion at the village pump regarding the legitimacy of this template." I suggest you may need to notify the previous people involved in this complex topic and possibly open an RfC on how to handle it, rather than causing damaging by deleting a template that will result in the deletion of 165+ files some of which are being used in Featured content across Wiki projects. Deleting this template will impact 100s of articles and editors. Clearly this little deletion request is not being properly advertised or notified in the right places or with the right people who have experience working through the issue. Unless it is your hope to delete it with as little notice as possible. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified 6 editors who took part in the above 2010 discussions since this is a complex topic with significant prior discussion years ago. I did not notify all just the ones who are still somewhat active on Commons (edits in 2013). I did not pay attention to positions to avoid canvassing. The notifications can be seen in the "What links here" of this page. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Stefan4. There was no consensus in those discussions. Just a bunch of users unsure of how to fix a template they found to be wrong in some way. And one user 4 years ago saying something does not make it the rule of the land. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So until an attorney or similar comments,  Delete. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Stefan4: You conclusion is here is obviously wrong somewhere, although I don't know the details. You seems to mean that no sound recording can be in the public domain in USA before 2067, which is quite absurb. I can see that this interpretation would please very much the industry, and that some people are lobbying to make it the "official" interpretation of the law. Respectfully, I don't understand what you are trying to prove here. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely absurd, but that doesn't mean it isn't correct. The first thing I found on Google backs it up: [1]. FormerIP (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that page suggests that pre-1972 US government sound recordings are in the public domain. What does the website base that statement on? {{PD-USGov}} only refers to an article in the federal law, but pre-1972 sound recordings are completely exempt from federal law, including things such as {{PD-USGov}} and fair use. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is absurd, but true. Federal copyright law in the US did not protect sound recordings until 1972, so various states did, and when they did make sound recordings copyrightable, they let old state laws stand for pre-1972 recordings until 75 years from publication, which got the 20 years extension. This Nevada law is just one example; I haven't looked at every state law, but every state I've searched has such a law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, 17 U.S.C. § 301(c) tells that the state copyright expires on 15 February 2067, without any consideration of when the sound recordings were published, only when they were fixated. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right; 95 years from 1972, I meant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds recordings in the U.S. are indeed thorny. The tag is technically correct that federal copyright law does not cover pre-1972 recordings (except possibly for foreign recordings, as the URAA mentioned them specifically). It's not correct that state copyright law applies only in New York -- because of the lack of federal copyright, record labels brought lawsuits in a great many states over the decades before 1972, and there is little doubt there is widespread protection for sound recordings, at least commercial ones. The protection is typically common-law, which means there is an awful lot of gray area over what exactly is OK and what is not. Fair use absolutely applies, and there is probably some limit over what is protected -- it's not going to automatically be everything, but courts would serve to protect commercial interests from unfair competition, so I would be very careful (i.e. avoid) commercial recordings, especially studio recordings, unless (as Prosfilaes notes) the owner of the master recordings made some action to make them public domain or licensed them. But common sense is more applicable instead of the general rule that basically everything is copyrighted, so basic private recordings with little/no commercial value may not get any real protection. There are any-piracy laws on the books as well, not strictly copyright, which often cover selling copies for profit. I'm not sure if the tag should be altered or deleted. The previous 2010 discussions linked above all seemed to agree there was a need to alter the text significantly but I don't think it was ever done. I'm of the opinion we need to be very careful about commercial music recordings, but use common sense on other types. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some comments/questions:
  1. You claim that fair use applies. Could you explain what you mean? There is one kind of fair use which is defined in 17 U.S.C. § 107, i.e. the federal law. Are you claiming that this kind of fair use applies, or are you claiming that the boundaries are different? As the federal law doesn't apply to old sound recordings, I would have thought that states do not have to follow 17 U.S.C. § 107 for their local fair use criteria. On the other hand, 17 U.S.C. § 107 partially seems to have to be formed because courts ruled that the freedom of speech provisions in the US constitution demands some kind of fair use. State law can't overrule the US constitution, so the states would have to provide some kind of fair use, but would the criteria for such fair use have to be the same?
  2. Non-U.S. sound recordings are sometimes eligible for URAA restoration, which grants federal protection to some pre-1972 sound recordings. Under the Copyright Act of 1909, literary and artistic works were protected by state law since creation, but by federal law only since publication, and the state law protection was terminated when federal copyright protection was acquired. Does a non-U.S. sound recording in the same way lose state law protection if it gains "restored" federal protection under the URAA? Example:
    • A European sound recording published in 1945 was in the public domain in Europe in 1996. Such sound recordings were therefore ineligible for URAA restoration. The state protection for such works appears to expire in 2067.
    • A European sound recording published in 1946 was protected in Europe in 1996. Such sound recordings were therefore eligible for URAA restoration and are therefore protected by federal copyright, which expires on 1 January 2042. Do these sound recordings additionally have state copyright protection which expires in 2067, or can we already start hosting them in 2042 when the federal protection expires?
  3. How do we determine if a sound recording is sufficiently commercial? The wording sounds creepy and makes me think of the Swedish copyright act of 1841. The 1841 copyright act is no longer relevant as the last transitional rules expired in the 1920s or 1930s, so I don't know much about it, but it basically said that works were protected for the lifetime of the author and then for 20 years from publication of the most recent edition, with the possibility to extend the term infinitely by publishing new editions which extended the term by another 20 years. This possibly also brought works back from the public domain if the copyright already had expired. For example, what happens if an artist made a private recording in his youth, before he became famous, and then publishes it 50 years later when he has become world-famous? Most famous artists have probably made sound recordings before becoming famous, and those sound recordings would then be "non-commercial" at the point of creation, but possibly "commercial" for the moment. For example, take this product, a collection of 6 CDs. In his youth, the artist produced private sound recordings in one copy only for himself (sometimes including other people) so that he could hear his own voice in preparation for public performances, or because he thought it was fun to have a disc with his singing before he got anything commercially published. Certainly non-commercial purposes at the point of creation. Now some of these old recordings fill up one of these 6 CDs. Are these recordings "commercial" in the United States under state copyright laws? --Stefan4 (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry I was so long in responding...
  1. 17 USC 107 is basically a codification of the common-law fair use which the courts (both federal and state) used for decades before 1978. Congress' goal in their wording was to come as close to existing precedent as possible. While state courts would not be bound by the specific language in the federal law, there is still lots of precedent in existing cases and it would follow very similar lines I'd think. The boundaries could be a bit different of course, given the specific facts of any case, but it wouldn't be wildly different. The law is just a continuation of the long-standing doctrine. Quoting from the legislative notes: The judicial doctrine of fair use, one of the most important and well-established limitations on the exclusive right of copyright owners, would be given express statutory recognition for the first time in section 107. [...lots of good discussion...] The bill endorses the purpose and general scope of the judicial doctrine of fair use, but there is no disposition to freeze the doctrine in the statute, especially during a period of rapid technological change. Beyond a very broad statutory explanation of what fair use is and some of the criteria applicable to it, the courts must be free to adapt the doctrine to particular situations on a case-by-case basis. Section 107 is intended to restate the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way. Reading that entire section of notes is a good idea if you want more info on the background of that section. The nature of common-law copyright can be different of course, since things do not get automatic protection, and so there might be differences based on that.
  2. That's an interesting question. I think it's safe to assume that if something was not restored by the URAA, then common-law protection probably still exists. Federal protection may well serve to eliminate common-law protection. I suspect there won't be any real cases on that until something which did get restored by the URAA exhausts its federal term. There might have been a couple of years of that before (works published in 1921 and 1922) but I'm not aware of any cases answering this question.
  3. As far as I understand it, a lot of U.S. copyright theory was protecting the investment made in creating works, so in common law I'd guess the amount of money invested in something would mean it would more likely be protected (as opposed to federal copyright law). This goes especially for sound recordings, as there are a number of anti-piracy acts on the books. For your example above, sure it would be commercial. They are products for sale, and presumably generating revenue. As with federal copyright, I would presume that publication is still very important -- if the first publication is as a commercial product like that, of course it's commercial. On the other hand, if someone distributed a recording for free for whatever reason, with the expectation that people could copy it -- that may be hard to claim common-law protection years later when there are already lots of copies out there. If a company paid for the rights to certain recordings, courts would probably choose to protect that investment if someone tried to copy them somehow. If there is no commercial market for a type of recording (not all recordings are music recordings after all) it would probably be different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Carl Lindberg indicates, copyright on sound recordings in the U.S. before 1972 is horribly complicated. This template is certainly well-intentioned, but it oversimplifies to the point of inaccuracy. Jonathunder (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is time for me to speak. I have been carefully observing this discussion since the beginning, but have not stated an opinion until now. Although I do not currently have any uploads marked with this template, I did at one point, and I added the template to a file that still has it. I was also an active member of Featured Sounds on the English Wikipedia before it stopped being active over disputes of the criteria. I believe several featured sounds use the template. Despite all the reasons I have to say keep, I will not. I think that the template is terribly inaccurate. I also believe there was consensus in 2010 and there is consensus now that this is so. The question now becomes: What to do about it? From the precautionary principle I think that at a minimum we need to stop future uploads from using the template until the foundation lawyers give the go ahead or we can reword the template so it is correct. This leads to a second question: Is it even possible to reword the template so that it is accurate? If not, we must delete the template and everything that uses it, if a alternative template cannot be found. Zginder (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment If at all possible the template should be reworded rather than deleted and instructions should be given for its use. It may be worth a comment that this situation applies to sound recordings issued as records and not to sound tracks of films, TV programmes, etc. (also in UK). If any sound tracks are PD we should be sure they are tagged appropriately. If any sound files are to be deleted here, snippets may be legitimate under fair use on ENWP (for example). Whether fair use can be claimed on recordings under state copyright has started to be discussed there.[2][3] Thincat (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If some of the files can be kept, then they should of course be kept, but the problem is that the exact criteria are so vague and unclear. For the moment, we have a template which is wrong, without any clear idea of how to correct it, or if some part of it can be saved somehow. Clindberg suggested that we may need to determine if a recording is sufficiently "commercial", but I have no idea how to do this. Are you sure that this situation doesn't also apply to sound recordings which are part of films, or are you just guessing? --Stefan4 (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding whether a film soundtrack is copyrighted as part of the film (where the sound recording has not been previously published), I certainly wasn't guessing and I wouldn't do that. I try very hard to check my remarks are justified. However, I may be wrong. I had originally been looking at UK law because of the discussion we were having at ENWP that I linked above. For UK law I read in some book that the copyright of a film soundtrack is part of the film copyright so I looked into the legislation here Search for "track" but be aware it may be hyphenated as sound-track". It says "The sound track accompanying a film shall be treated as part of the film for the purposes of this Part.". Before replying here I have just investigated further and found "Film Copyright in the European Union" by Pascal Kamina, 2002, page 95, where it describes the situation, and one that has changed over time.[4] It says "... the definition of films expressly includes the soundtrack." but you need to read the whole thing. Regarding the far more complex US law (which is what matters here) I don't know except that I read (on Commons, I think, and written by someone I think knows what he is talking about, possibly Carl Lindberg) that the same applies in the US. I don't have a diff. Is there a serious suggestion that if a film was registered for US copyright that the soundtrack was not covered as well? On the other hand, I am certainly not suggesting that if a prior copyright sound recording is embedded in a film that the sound recording loses its original copyright.Thincat (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hm, that's something which may differ a lot from country to country. Under the Swedish law, as written in the 1960s, there was no single cinematographic work, but instead each person who made a contribution which was above the threshold of originality held the copyright in that contribution, and that contribution entered the public domain 50 years after the death of the person who made that contribution. This meant that different parts of the same film entered the public domain at different points. Sound recordings in turn are below the threshold of originality in Sweden, which means that their copyright protection is a bit different to the standard copyright protection. The EU directive changed some things (having a term of 70 years after the death of a couple of people), but the old Swedish rules apply in those cases where the EU rules provide shorter protection to a work which was created before the EU rules were implemented, for example in those cases where one or more of the potentially hundreds of co-authors of a film died more than 20 years after the longest living of those four people which are listed in the EU directive. I don't think that your comments about the British rules allow us to make any assumptions about American rules. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, it doesn't really look as if if was worth me writing that, does it? The United States Copyright Office seems to think that film soundtracks are included in the copyright of the film and they explain that "phonorecords" are objects "other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work".[5][6][7] However, I expect the precautionary principle requires us to assume these people may not know what they are talking about. Thincat (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Copyright Office normally knows what it is talking about, so unless we have a reason to assume otherwise, I think that we should assume that the Copyright Office is correct. The Copyright Office talks about phonerecords, but s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 3/Section 301 (c) talks about "sound recordings". Note that s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 101 defines both "phonerecords" and "sound recordings" independently of each other, but neither category seems to contain the soundtracks of films. This, together with the Copyright Office statement, might save film soundtracks, provided that the film is in the public domain for some reason. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Stefan4, Green Cardamom has justified the conclusion that consensus that the template isn't wrong, and you can keep saying it's wrong or that you deny that was the consensus 'till you're blue in the face, but if you think consensus is not what we think it is, RFC away, as GC suggested. Otherwise, it looks like you're forum shopping, as you are bringing up the same issue in yet another forum. --Elvey (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions Summary

  1. This issue was brought up first (as far as I can tell) on the English Wikipedia at project page called Media copyright questions. It was discussed there between 2010-01-02 and 2010-01-04.
    Result Template needs to be fixed.
  2. Between 2010-01-04 and 2010-01-06 this issue was first brought to commons at the Village pump.
  3. It was then discussed at the talk page for commons licensing. This discussion ran from 2010-03-05 to 2010-03-23.
  4. It was brought up again in the same forum on 2010-06-11. This continued until 2010-07-01.
  5. Lastly, it was discussed a third time at the talk page for commons licensing staring on 2010-11-01. This discussion lasted until the next day, 2010-11-02.

Zginder (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at all those links, I see no consensus for this template. At most of those, Carl Lindberg and I have said pretty much the same things we're saying here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Without consensus for deletion. Should be fixed. Alan (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

Update: Based on a new report from Legal since this deletion discussion closed, here, it is now clear that there is no need to delete this template, or perform any mass or bulk deletions or deletion requests related to it; they would be inappropriate. IMNSHO. --Elvey (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not at all how I read that. It says "Although pre-1972 sound recordings are under the domain of state copyright law, some of these works may still be posted to Commons if they have been freely licensed by the owner."; that is, we should only keep these recordings if we have a free license for them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What parts of "it is now clear that there is no need to delete this template, or perform any mass or bulk deletions or deletion requests related to it; they would be inappropriate" do you disagree with, exactly?--Elvey (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that "we should only keep these recordings if we have a free license for them" is certainly false. Some are unlicensed and PD, for example. Sheesh, Prosfilaes!--Elvey (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Your claim that "we should only keep these recordings if we have a free license for them" is certainly false." is certainly false. Sheesh, Elvey!--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be claiming that there is no such thing as a pre '72 sound recording by the US Government to which {{PD-USGov}} applies? Yet you offer no logic whatsoever to support the claim. State law cannot grant a copyright to the US government in its own works. --Elvey (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a case where the presumed copyright holder told us we could use them. That's ridiculous nitpicking irrelevant to this issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least you recognize your error, even as you make light of it. What's ridiculous is that you didn't recognize your error, even after I wrote, "Some are unlicensed and PD, for example.". It's not nitpicking if someone goes and deletes a whole class of recordings due to erroneous guidance from an administrator. --Elvey (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The page you link to doesn't say that, and if you think it does, I would appreciate you quoting it instead of going all "Sheesh". All pre-1972 sound recordings are copyrighted under state copyright law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't say what? You said "we should only keep these recordings if we have a free license for them" is certainly false." on this page. AGAIN: What parts of "it is now clear that there is no need to delete this template, or perform any mass or bulk deletions or deletion requests related to it; they would be inappropriate" do you disagree with, exactly? Seriously. That's a question. The quote is of myself, from my first post to this thread. You say you don't agree with it. So I asked the question to get you to clarify what part or parts of it you don't agree with. Now, please answer the question. --Elvey (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If not a willful misquote of what I wrote, it's an extraordinarily careless misreading. I don't know how I can communicate with you at all at this point.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't misquote you, and I resent the accusation. What I wrote is 'Your claim that "we should only keep these recordings if we have a free license for them" is certainly false. Some are unlicensed and PD, for example.'. Since you've failed 5 times to identify what parts of "it is now clear that there is no need to delete this template, or perform any mass or bulk deletions or deletion requests related to it; they would be inappropriate" you disagree with, I don't know how I can communicate with you. --Elvey (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You said I wrote
"we should only keep these recordings if we have a free license for them" is certainly false."
I wrote
"Your claim that "we should only keep these recordings if we have a free license for them" is certainly false." is certainly false.
That you can't see a difference is confusing, and calling it a misquote is entirely fair.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have failed to understand what I'm saying at a basic level. I seriously don't understand what you don't understand about the sentence I posted above:
It [That is, the link you posted at top] says "Although pre-1972 sound recordings are under the domain of state copyright law, some of these works may still be posted to Commons if they have been freely licensed by the owner."; that is, we should only keep these recordings if we have a free license for them.
I think that's entirely clear.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've failed 6 times to identify what parts of "it is now clear that there is no need to delete this template, or perform any mass or bulk deletions or deletion requests related to it; they would be inappropriate" you disagree with, I don't know how I can communicate with you. --Elvey (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These. Files. Are. Under. Copyright. We. Do. Not. Host Files. Under. Copyright. Without. A. Free. License. Does that help? I don't know how you can not understand what "we should only keep these recordings if we have a free license for them" means. Seriously. I disagree with every word of that sentence. Every part of it. Does that make it clear at all?--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that "we should only keep these recordings if we have a free license for them" is certainly false. Some are unlicensed and PD, for example. Sheesh, Prosfilaes! That's true now, and was true when I said it at 20:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC). It does not mean the same thing as "We. Do. Not. Host Files. Under. Copyright. Without. A. Free. License." It seems you forgot that you realized your error after I pointed out, "State law cannot grant a copyright to the US government in its own works." Such. Files. Are. Not. Under. Copyright. To. Use. Your. Rude. Syntax. When you (incredibly belatedly) say you disagree with every word of "it is now clear that there is no need to delete this template, or perform any mass or bulk deletions or deletion requests related to it; they would be inappropriate," you are disagreeing with the WMF's LCA's statement and implicitly expressing intent to violate it. You as an admin should not be taking actions or implicitly expressing intent to take actions that violate the guidance LCA has been kind enough to provide. If you feel you cannot avoid doing so, you should resign your admin bit. But if you remain unable to see in the LCA's statement what I see there, I expect you will insist that I'm wrong and that you can perform related mass/bulk actions and keep your bit. --Elvey (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as discussed below, most pre-1972 sound recordings created in the United States are not in the public domain. That is what the Foundation says. Thus, we can only host those "most" pre-1972 recordings if we have a license tag separate than this one. Technically, yes, states can grant a copyright to the US government in its own works, *if* the work in question is outside the scope of federal copyright law (which pre-1972 sound recordings are). It's just that the thought that the US government would actually try to exercise such rights is pretty laughable, and might not hold up in court due to PD-USGov (although that provision is part of US federal copyright law in the first place, so may not apply to works outside of it, though there are earlier underlying laws which might hold, and also the theory may carry to common-law copyright). However... those works can just use the PD-USGov tag, since that is the primary rationale. They should not use this one. For recordings by anyone else, most cannot use this tag either -- we need separate permission, since they are not public domain. Thus the potential valid use of this tag is a very, *very* small sliver of works, which would be those sound recordings first published and distributed without any real expectation of commercial use. That will typically exclude almost all music recordings. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying we should have a PD-1992 template that says that works published in 1992 are in the public domain because of US government works? PD-US-record does not give a justification for keeping works, therefore it should be deleted. And after a PD template is deleted, the works that had it as their license template must likewise be deleted as works without a free license.
I welcome you to try and take my non-existent admin bit away. Even if I had one, I sure hope that "the admin disagreed with me; didn't use his tools, just disagreed with me" would be good enough to get you laughed at.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth visit to grave of dead horse
[edit]

The statement on the tag that only New York protects these recordings is flat-out wrong. They are protected throughout the United States and thus many/most pre-1972 recordings have copyright protection in the United States despite the fact they have no federal protection. That latter fact is *not* the same thing as no protection at all. It used to be commonly understood, that there was federal protection for copyright and common-law state-level protection (for say unpublished works) -- you had to publish or register with the Copyright Office if you wanted the federal protection instead (which had more explicit rules but had a time limit). For pre-1972 recordings, they simply do not have the option for federal protection, so they continue to have common-law copyright. The tag definitely needs to be changed, quite a bit, as the Foundation page you link to says -- it quite clearly says there is still protection for these works. This will apply to most any commercial record, unfortunately. There are probably some types of recordings which may not get common-law protection (non-music), which is why each one would need to be evaluated, but for the commercial music recordings they really should be deleted unless there is a license. "Unfortunately, as discussed below, most pre-1972 sound recordings created in the United States are not in the public domain" is the summary text from that page. If the nature of the work is very non-commercial (recording of interviews for a research project released for free to the public long ago maybe) then they may not get protection. Otherwise, you'd need to see if there is a license from the owner of the master recordings. If not... then they are under copyright. That is what the Foundation page says. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, consensus is against you. The tag doesn't say that only New York protects these recordings. It says what's verifiable.--Elvey (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So now we're ignoring what the WMF says and calling on consensus again? It does not say what is verifiable; would you like to offer a cite for "this principle has so far only been applied regarding copyright in New York" or "it is asserted that this sound recording not based on copyrighted material can currently be considered public domain in the United States generally, except in New York"?--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've failed 6 times to identify what parts of "it is now clear that there is no need to delete this template, or perform any mass or bulk deletions or deletion requests related to it; they would be inappropriate" you disagree with, I don't know how I can communicate with you. --Elvey (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much in agreement with what Carl Lindberg said above, not because I want to be but that is what the Foundation is saying, given the unfortunately bad laws and Commons policy. The Foundation said: "works may still be posted to Commons if they have been freely licensed by the owner" .. am I taking this out of context? Did they say something contrary to this? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that was pretty much the gist of it. And those works would need a different license tag, not this one. There were plenty of non-New York court cases giving copyright to recordings (though in many cases it may have more technically been a copyright owned by the performers which was transferred to the labels via contract). The end result though is there is a copyright separate from the musical composition itself and it's generally valid across the country, and it may not really ever expire. The cases this tag might apply to would be non-commercial (and probably non-music) types of recordings. If a recording was made public without any real expectation of making a profit on selling copies, it may have entered the common-law public domain. Maybe some recordings of an interview, or something like that. But that is usually a small minority of the types of old recordings which exist and people would want to upload. It's an unfortunate, messy situation. In most cases, the lack of federal copyright protection does not help us here, and may actually make things worse. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2018 changes

[edit]

The U.S. Music Modernization Act, passed in 2018, will finally end the mess of pre-1972 works (though somewhat oddly). They will end up with 100 years of protection (or more) for a few more decades; pre-1923 works expire in 2022 and there will be gradual expirations after that. So, this will be a valid PD tag starting in 2022, and the wording has been changed accordingly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-US-record&oldid=331356642"