Template talk:PD-US-expired

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Published in the U.S.

[edit]

It shouldn't say published in the U.S. Per Cornell's copyright chart, a work published anywhere before 1923 is public domain in the U.S. Superm401 - Talk 02:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but commons, though hosted in Florida, uses a different scheme than en. En accepts any images out of copyright in the US - on commons, they must be out of copyright in the host country. Patstuart (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I've made a clarification to that effect, noting that for the image to be here, it should also be PD in the source country. However, it doesn't seem like this distinction is widely enforced here. Superm401 - Talk 17:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to revert your edit... that's the point. If originally published in the US, the US is the source country. -Nard 02:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't reverted my edit, and I don't understand what you mean by "the point". Under U.S. law, any image, published anywhere in the world before 1923, is public domain. Images can be uploaded to Commons if they are public domain in their source countries, as well as the U.S. Thus, images must be public domain in their source country to use this template. However, there is no requirement that the source country by the U.S. (because that is neither a requirement of U.S. law nor Commons). Superm401 - Talk 07:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, that is the point. It is a widely enforced rule on commons, and if they're in public domain in their home country, then we use the template for that country. Thus we have {{PD-Iraq}}, {{PD-Argentina}}, etc. Patstuart (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of those templates do anything to show it's PD in the US. It must be PD in both jurisdictions. Superm401 - Talk 06:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it mustn't in fact. If it's public domain in the home country a) I think that it qualifies as PD in the US most the time anyway, and b) I believe commons allows it anyway. Patstuart (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it must. If Commons publishes content that is copyrighted in the U.S., it's violating the law. Thus, we must avoid doing so. It's that simple. Superm401 - Talk 04:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Licensing, which explicitly says PD content must be "in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." Superm401 - Talk 04:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Then, I believe that {{PD-Argentina}}, {{PD-Tunisia}}, and others need to be nominated for deletion (care to offer?). Interestingly, this text is not present in other language versions of COM:L, and this discrepancy needs to be addressed. Again, care to starta a discussion there? Patstuart (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't have to be deleted, though I agree they are sometimes misused. Argentinian (or Tunisian, etc.) PD photos can only be uploaded if they are also PD in the U.S. I have started a thread at Commons_talk:Licensing#Source_country_and_U.S. to confirm this. Superm401 - Talk 01:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remove the "published in the U.S." part again. For U.S. works, use {{PD-US}}, and if you want to make clear it's PD in the U.S. because of it having been published before 1923, add {{PD-1923}}. This template should also apply to foreign works, but it's not a stand-alone template. See the discussion Superm401 linked above. Lupo 08:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restate

[edit]

I've now restated this tag; please tell me what you think. I've taken out the part about published in the United States, and instead stated that it is public domain the US and its home country. I have also removed the included category (PD US), as I didn't think it belonged. Please feel free to comment or make any changes. Patstuart (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This can be a stand-alone image tag, when the image is first published in the U.S. If the image is first published outside the U.S. before 1923, then there should be this tag, and another one that applies to the source country. Superm401 - Talk 06:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Languages

[edit]

{{Editprotected}} Could somebody please, add the template in portuguese in it {{PD-1923/pt}}?Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Sorry it took so long ^^ --Waldir talk 19:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry =D. And thanks.Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Editprotected}} Add link to translation to spanish {{PD-1923/es}}. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Locos epraix himself on Template:PD-1923/lang. Note for future editors/translators: editprotected requests are not needed, edit that page directly since it is not protected as of now. If it eventually becomes protected, add the request to Template talk:PD-1923/lang, not here. Thanks, Waldir talk 08:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

template

[edit]

If the work is not a U.S. work, the file must have an additional copyright tag indicating the copyright status in the source country

i don't understand, if its US and published before 1923, the correct tag is {{PD-US}}, no ? this template is for Public Domain in USA because first published before 1923 outside USA by non US citizens or US citizens living abroad. As stated here : {{PD-old}} & look here for explanation : http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

first sentence should also say : This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside United States before January 1, 1923 by foreign nationals or U.S. citizens living Abroad

Are you really sure we need a second tag for copyright status from country of origin, in all cases ? --Lilyu (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition :

Public domain
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929.

US on not-US

[edit]

I think we have a huge problem here. This template duplicates in some part {{PD-US}}, concerning works first published in the US before 1923. But it also concerns works published in other countries before 1923. OK, the template says that they should be PD also in that country, but then, why should we note that they are also PD in the US? A correct tag for the primary copyright status should be enough for the image to be hosted in Commons. Is there any chance that an image could be PD in the source country of the work and NOT PD in the US? With this template some people believe (although the template mentions that a second tag is needed) that it covers all images before 1923 (it does, but not in that way) in fact leaving them without an appropriate license notice. Examples: File:Hans Christian Andersen.jpg, File:General view of the principality, Monaco, Riviera.jpg, File:Aggelos Giallinas.JPG. We should have a function discovering files with this tag only, or discard the whole concept of "tagging the copyright status in the US" when this depends on the copyright status elsewhere. --Geraki TLG 17:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Case of PD-US but not PD-source-country: In 1922, Alf (a 24-year-old Frenchman) took a photo of a celebrity and published it. Alf died at the ripe old age of 90 years in 1988. His 1922 work is public domain in the US by the country's law (publishing before 1923); however, his work only goes into French public domain at the start of 2079 (70 years pma).
  • Case of PD-source-country but not PD-US: In 1955, Lee (a 24-year-old Chinese) took a photo of Deng Xiaopeng and published it. Under the country's law, his work enters the Chinese public domain on the start of 2006 (50 years of protection). However, under US law, it was "solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996"; hence it is still copyrighted in the US until 2051 (95 years of protection).
In summary, a material in the US public domain may not be public domain in its source country and vice versa; the PD-1923 template is used to indicate work's copyright status in the US. Jappalang (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It seems the latter example is irrelevant as it does not have to do with the 1923-limit. But what I'm talking about is exactly the first case:
The template itself declares that the work "must be out of copyright in both the United States and in the source country of the work in order to be hosted on the Commons." So, that 1922 french photo would not be allowed to be hosted in Commons. But if Alf had died in 1937 the photo would be public domain in France, so {{PD-old}} would be enough. There is no need to mention the US copyright since it's public domain worldwide. If it's a US work, {{PD-US}} would also be enough. So this templates is just messing everything. --Geraki TLG 11:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Include registration before 1923

[edit]

{{Editprotected}} Per discussions here and here, please change "... because it was published before January 1, 1923." to "... because it was registered with the U.S. Copyrights Office or published before January 1, 1923." Jappalang (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done (Even though you could have done it yourself, the text is on an unprotected Template:PD-1923/en.) --Mormegil (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a Country param to suppress warning

[edit]

This template currently always outputs a warning that files must be PD in the source country, even for files first published in the US before 1923. There should be a |country=US parameter that suppresses that warning for such files. --Xover (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is being taken care of below. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Propose rename to not mention a year

[edit]

On 1 January 2019 the title and text of this template becomes outdated as anything published before 1924 is in the public domain. Thereafter every year the date goes up.

By the transclusion count Wikimedia Commons is currently using this template 382,842 times. There are variations of this template which also mention 1923. Perhaps this date is on several hundred thousand or even millions of other templates, all of which will need correction in about 4 months.

While it is easy to change the text of a template it is not easy to change the filename. One edit changes the text; in about 4 months we will have to do one edit per file to change the template on hundreds of thousands of files. The change should be to a name which does not reference a year and so which would make sense perpetually.

What proposal does anyone have for a new name for this? What proposal does anyone have for scheduling and executing updates?

I created a new project page at Commons:Public Domain Day. Since I think this is a challenge for many pages on Wikimedia Commons, I propose that central discussion happen there unless someone identifies another space which is already established or better developed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could just redirect to {{PD-old-95}} and update the rationale over there: "This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 95 years or less, or the copyright term is 95 years from the date of first publication." De728631 (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps

[edit]
  1. Collect some proposals for new names
  2. Draft a proposal to change right here
  3. mention Commons:Rename a template - there is no Commons discussion process specifically for renaming or deleting templates
  4. Start Rfc per Commons:Requests for comment
  5. Advertise RfC at Commons:Centralized discussion
  6. get admin to mass rename the template (300k+ templates)

Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's rather have a centralised discussion at Commons talk:Public Domain Day because proposal and arguments have also been made there. De728631 (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am further directing comments at Commons_talk:Public_Domain_Day#Propose_rename_to_not_mention_a_year_-_template_problem. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template will need to be updated every year until 2073,because after that it will be frozen in 1978 forever,like it was frozen in 1923 for 20 years SigmaAnt (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add parameters to suppress the "U.S. work" warning

[edit]

{{Editprotected}} Replace the contents of this page with User:BMacZero/PD-US-expired per this proposal.

This template will no longer use Autotranslate because it now takes parameters (hide_us_warning and publication_country). I've restructured it based on Template:PD-old-X-expired and Template:PD-US-expired/layout to support that. I created one other template already for this change (Template:PD-US-expired-note-text). Test cases can be found at User:BMacZero/Sandbox.

We can delete all the autotranslate subpages (layout and language) after this change, and I can update the documentation after the request is filled. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the contents of this page with User:BMacZero/PD-US-expired per this proposal. This also requires replacing Template:PD-US-expired/layout with User:BMacZero/PD-US-expired/layout and adding pass-through parameters to all language subpages as shown at User:BMacZero/PD-US-expired/en. Note that for PD-US-expired and PD-US-expired/layout, "User:BMacZero/PD-US-expired" needs to be replaced by "Template:PD-US-expired". These edits can be safely done in any order, but they should be done close together to minimize the impact on the job queue.

The template now takes parameters hide_us_warning and publication_country. Also, it will accept a license template in 1 just like {{PD-Art}}. If any of these parameters is correctly provided, the non-US license warning will be hidden. If a license template is provided, it will be displayed after this one.

I can update the documentation after the request is filled. – BMacZero (🗩) 00:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See User:BMacZero/Sandbox for tests. – BMacZero (🗩) 00:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BMacZero and 4nn1l2: this change appears to have caused a bunch of template loops: Category:Pages with template loops. For example, see File:Nils Andersson Bävik.jpg for an invocation of {{PD-scan-two}} that worked before this change but now throws an error. {{PD-US-expired|PD-Sweden-photo}} works as expected, but wrapping it in {{PD-scan}} or {{PD-art}} does not (like {{PD-scan|PD-US-expired|PD-Sweden-photo}}, which should be fine because the second parameter is passed to the template called in the first parameter). clpo13(talk) 22:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@4nn1l2 and Clpo13: It sounds like we need to flip {{Autotranslate/clone 1}} here to {{Autotranslate/clone 2}}. clone_1 is used here to avoid a loop with the nested license; I didn't consider the case where this template could be nested inside PD-Art itself, which already uses clone_1 for the same purpose. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done That worked. The category is empty now. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@4nn1l2 and Clpo13: Just a heads-up that I noticed that publication_country and country were redundant when I was writing the documentation, so I dropped the publication_country parameter (at the layout template). It's now being redundantly passed here, but that will cause no issues if it's desirable to avoid making more edits (I don't know how important that is). I will replace the few uses of publication_country that exist. I also updated the documentation to note that only two-letter ISO codes should be used because that is how similar templates like {{PD-1996}} work and compatibility there is probably desirable. – BMacZero (🗩) 06:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BMacZero: I removed the redundant parameter. I don't think we should worry about system performance. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@4nn1l2 and BMacZero: {{PD-US-expired|hide_us_warning}} somehow results in this template trying to call {{Hide us warning}}. (which doesn't exist. I know =1 is supposed to follow) I'm also not a big fan of the "country" parameter, if that gets expanded it could make Commons even more US-centric than it already is. I'd prefer {{PD-US-expired|nowarn}} and an alternate {{PD-US-expired|uswork}} that both hide the warning. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: It makes sense that people might try the first syntax. I'll see if it's clean to add it at some point, though that parameter is only intended to be used rarely by other templates such as {{PD-scan-two}} so it shouldn't be a common occurrence. I'm not sure I understand the "US-centric" thing. I don't see what the semantic difference is between {{PD-US-expired|uswork}} and {{PD-US-expired|country=US}} other than that the later is more generic in case other countries do come to matter some day, and it's more consistent with existing templates like {{PD-1996}}. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BMacZero: It could lead to, say, adding Germany, meaning a US template would be used for a German work. (we actually have {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=}} for that) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: I think I understand - you want to emphasize that setting 'country' to something other than "US" is not valid? I personally don't think that's enough of a problem to re-write the change and break consistency with other license templates, which AFAIK always ask the user for information with which to validate the license (e.g. 'deathyear' and 'reason') rather than asking them to simply assert that their use is valid. This gives us the opportunity to add uses with bad parameters to a maintenance category so they can be checked. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: I agree with BMacZero that these make no practical difference. I also don't find Commons US-centric. Apart from its servers which are located in the US and hence we should follow US laws, I find Commons more Eurocentric, especially considering the multitude of successful German users. But this has nothing to do with this template. We can discuss it somewhere else if needed. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BMacZero: Please look at the documentation of {{PD-Meyers-pages}} and {{Licensed-PD-Art-two}} where template loop is detected. {{TemplateBox}} is also using {{Autotranslate/clone 2}}. Should we use {{Autotranslate/clone 3}} for this one? If so, how can we make sure that another template in some corner of Commons is not using {{Autotranslate/clone 3}} too and loops won't occur again? 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4nn1l2: Ick. Well, we can try to find a hole with searches: clone_3, clone_4. {{PD-Art-two}} uses clone_3, so that could result in a loop again. It looks like we can go to clone_4, which is only used by {{PD-1996-text}}. I will put some more pressure on the phabricator ticket because this is pretty hacky. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proscribe usage for sound recordings

[edit]

{{Edit request}} Please add the following note to the end of the template as in Template:PD-1996/en. This copyright tag is not applicable to sound recordings, which are protected differently from other works. Please see the Cornell copyright chart for information on the differences between sound recordings and other works under US copyright law.

Note: This tag should not be used for sound recordings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysterymanblue (talk • contribs) 15:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mysterymanblue: ✓ Done, please check also the translations if you're not using English interface, those usually don't need edit requests. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 09/01/2021

[edit]

{{Edit request}} if this is fine, may I request someone to add a flag of the United States in the similar manner as {{PD-US}}? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: I think this is deliberate, although not necessarily ideal. I may remember incorrectly, but I think this was a request from contributors who work mostly with the non-en projects. The {{PD-US-expired}} and {{PD-1996}} US copyright tags don't use a US flag since they are very commonly paired with a source country copyright tag as part of the COM:L requirement that works indicate why they are free in both the country of origin and the US. In a more ideal world there should probably be two sets of US copyright tags — one set for works where the country of origin is the US and another set of US copyright tags for where the country of origin is not the US but we're obliged to indicate why the work is PD in the US in addition to the country of origin. Sometimes there is a subtle difference in copyright rules between the two (see, for instance, Commons:Subsisting copyright), so there would actually be value in having two sets beyond just cosmetics. Unfortunately Commons has spent many years without clearly distinguishing between these two use cases of the US copyright tags, and switching now would probably be large task. —RP88 (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done —RP88 (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request of clarification in template text

[edit]

Currently the text reads:

  • This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1927.

It could be made more clear where the publication is expected to have taken place. One of the following perhaps:

  • This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the U.S. (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1927.
  • This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published anywhere in the world (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1927.

--Bensin (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since this applies to first publications anywhere in the world, I agree that we should mention it in the template text. De728631 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I think we should change the unnecessary link to the "United States" Wikipedia article to a more relevant piped link to the "Public domain in the United States" article instead. The former is far too broad to be of any relevance to the issue at hand, while the latter is exactly the topic on hand.--Indopug (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Neutral This probably needs a wide discussion, should you post it via e.g. COM:VP? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:PD-US-expired&oldid=696874909"