Talk:Public domain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] A QUESTION

Can a book which is in the public domain in the U.S. be reprinted in the U.S. under a new title eventhough the old title has been trademarked by the original publisher? For example, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints has trademarked the name "Book of Mormon". But there are versions of the Book of the Mormon which are in the public domain. Can a public domain copy of the Book of Mormon be published under a new title without the consent of the above mentioned trademark owner? Jacob Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disavowing Copyright Anonymously

I think this page doesn't yet answer this conundrum. Could it? Should it?

"""

My personal history of pain leads me to want to contribute the code I discover into the public domain ... as into a wiki ... without making the code easy or hard to trace back to me.

I don't want to contribute to making the issue of authorship significant. I don't want to disconnect me from people who read code well but don't read English legalese accurately (e.g., I have met non-native speakers who erroneously conclude that GPL code is free of copy restrictions). Me, often enough I've just thrown my code out into a public place like Members.aol.com without discussing who wrote it or how the morally inalienable right to mash up my code may be restricted by my lack of power as an individual employed to create other code ...

A friend tells me that practice of mine can be unhelpful. My friend says that some corporate drones can only mash up code that is copyrighted and dedicated to the public domain. They have to run in fear from code that has no explicit license.

Could we/ should we here point to some label that might solve this problem without identifying me as the anonymous author?

Is there a simple one-line answer to this conundrum? Including lots of legalese is unworkable. It puts a barrier of understanding in front of any non-native speaker who's careful about what she/he agrees to. How about:

(C) Copyright 2007 Anonymous, dedicated to the public domain from the USA.

Would that work?

Curiously yours, thanks in advance,

"""

We can't invent an answer here -- that would be verboten original research. But does this answer already exists somewhere else? Can we find it? Where? How? -- Pelavarre 21:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revoking a Copywrite

If an author voluntarily pulls or waves a copywrite, does the work automatically enter public domain? Is it even possible to revoke a copywrite? While it may seem odd, I do think it's a valid what-if question.

Also, a good chart can be found here: http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm — 24.149.203.252 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean waives a copyright (the right to copy) not waves a copywrite. Yes, an author can waive his copyright by explicitly stating so in the work itself. There is no statutory provision under U.S. copyright law for such a waiver, but it's a legally sound procedure. — Walloon 08:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, is it possible to wave a copyright after it's been applied for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.203.252 (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Please remember to sign your posts to this page by typing four tildas (~) after your post. I think you mean waive (relinquish) not wave (move hand to and fro). A copyright exists on a work from the moment of creation. — Walloon 14:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Grammar & Unclear

"Only about 15 percent of all books are in the public domain, and 10 percent of all books that are still in print." 10% of which books?

Shouldn't that be "...all books that are, are still in print." ?

When you read an article, you should come away with the feeling that you knew little more than you did before you read it.

[edit] Mexico

i have removed information about perpetual copyrights in Mexico because [1] says that under the Mexican law passed in 2003 copyrights in Mexico lasts for creator's life plus 100 years. Kneiphof 17:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also _____ information about perpetual copyrights in Guatemala, Colombia and Samoa. According to the same website, copyrights extends 75 years after the death of creator in Guatemala and Samoa, and 80 after creator's death in Colombia Kneiphof 17:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Reread the statement. It's not saying the copyrights are perpetual; it's saying that it's out of copyright if "The last surviving author died at least 70 years before January 1 of the current year;" but these countries have longer copyright terms.--Prosfilaes 20:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, I'll pay more attention next time Kneiphof 23:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CopyrightedFreeUse should be deprecated

I have proposed at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags that {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} should be deprecated in favor of {{NoRightsReserved}}. Please comment there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] icon for public domain

To some eyes, the Wikipedia icon for "public domain" is the "cent" currency symbol (¢) in a circle. See Cent (currency). To avoid that confusion, might it help to use three "forward slashes" instead of one -- similar to the "end of prohibition" signs on European highways? --Rapha.el 23:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think a better answer is to reverse the direction of the slash. This would be more consistent with standard symbols (cf. the prohibition sign for traffic/safety signage) assuming that the intent is to convey "no copyright". Mditto 21:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Are public and private locations in public domain for commercial purposes? For instance, without asking permission, can one take and sell photographs of such distinctive places as Harvard Yard, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Transamerica Pyramid, the White House, or Half-Dome? As with every inch on land in the US, such places are controlled or owned by private or public entities. Also, to whom can one turn to get definitive answers to specific circumstances? Asking the "owners" often leads to wrong answers. Thanks. Tectonicplate 23:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public domain = free commercial use?

This article does not address the use of Public Domain images for commercial use. Suppose I took the George Bush pic, stuck it on a coffee mug and sold it. Is this legal under Public Domain? Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 20:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, public domain = free commercial use. there is no restriction on use of works classified as public domain, ie it does not matter whether it is for commercial use or not. --Mackinaw 23:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Mackinaw. This might be some good information to include in the article. No where does it explicitly state that commercial use is ok. Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't it fairly clearly say that the definition of public domain is essentially that anything can be done with works in it? --maru (talk) contribs 04:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
it's a common confusion so i think it's worth stating explicitly. I changed last sentence of para 1 to read: "This body of information and creativity is considered to be part of the common cultural and intellectual heritage of humanity, which in general anyone may use or exploit, whether for commercial or non-commercial purposes." which should do the trick. Mackinaw 18:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
although as i read that, it is not strictly right, because of the "all humanity" statement. something may be considered public domain in one juristiction but not another. will change that I guess. Mackinaw 18:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
you have not specified if that's a question or a suggestion, you must be strict about it
STOP! you guys haven't addressed a gray area in which a "public" 501(c) non profit organization (NPO) holds the copyright, trademark or patent. The IP in this case is "non-proprietary" because there is not owned by a private entity, and by definition "in" the public domain. I believe IRS Code (or other laws in the U.S.) says that if an NPO develops a piece of IP using public fund (donations), it MUST retain the ownership of that IP (otherwise it will be an accounting fraud). Can somebody look into this and give me a third party view on this?

Lockheedengineer

[edit] Comic with wrong licence

http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/ Can please anyone write to Duke Law if it would be possible to get at least one page of the Comic under a CC-BY licence? It would be a fine illustration --Historiograf 18:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xerox

"Xerox was also successful in avoiding its name becoming synonymous with the act of photocopying."

I'm not convinced. I buy the bit about Nintendo, but when I hear the word "Xerox" it's usually a verb meaning simply "to photocopy". Or was that supposed to mean that it hasn't lost its legal status? If so, it needs to be more clear. Should it say something like "avoided its name becoming genericized"? --WurdBendur 07:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Works of individual states

Are the works of individual states of the United States covered under public domain as well (i.e. state vs. federal)? Or even the works of cities and other municipalities? It seems as though public domain applies to the federal government only; can anyone verify this? One state I can say for sure releases its works into the public domain unless specified: California, as stated on its website on its "conditions of use" page: http://www.ca.gov/ --Geopgeop 02:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No that's not correct. Read carefully: However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use. I understand this that the state claims copyright also for own images made by employees of the state --Historiograf 17:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I did say "unless specified", didn't I? --Geopgeop 09:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. The site said "unless otherwise indicated"...
IN DOUBT THERE IS A GOLD RULE: ASK THEM --Historiograf 01:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • US federal works are in the public domain. That (well-known) rule about US government works applies only to US federal government works. Individual states own the copyrights to their own works. It's possible that some states have also dedicated their works to the public domain, but I don't know of any and have never researched the question. --lquilter 03:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Works of Nonprofit Organizations (Public Charities)

HELP!! you guys haven't addressed a gray area in which a "public" 501(c) non profit organization (NPO) holds the copyright, trademark or patent. The IP in this case is "non-proprietary" because there is not owned by a private entity, and by definition "in" the public domain. I believe IRS Code (or other laws in the U.S.) says that if an NPO develops a piece of IP using public fund (donations), it MUST retain the ownership of that IP (otherwise it will be an accounting fraud). Can somebody look into this and give me a third party view on this? Lockheedengineer

What sort of 501(c)(3) is "public", in your view? Are you referring to state and federal entities (and their respective rules of ownership), or to private organizations that happen to qualify as "public charities" (e.g., The United Way)? Just because an NPO obtains funding from the public does not mean its assets are "owned" by the public in the sense of corporate control. Also note that IP developed internally by a company has NO VALUE on the balance sheet; only IP procured from others (or sold) has a capital value for accounting purposes. Lupinelawyer 18:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about the expiration section

Hi, I was wondering if someone could clarify a few things for me. First, the expiration section is referring to the copyrights of published works, right? I see later in the article that unpublished works have a different set of criteria for when their copyright expires. In the case that the expiration section is referring to published works only, perhaps it should be clarified that a different set of criteria are used to determine the expiration of copyright for unpublished works.

Second, I have been told that works published before 1923 are in the public domain. However, the expiration section of the article says one of the requirements for something to be in the public domain is "The last surviving author died at least 70 years before January 1 of the current year." So, this year (2006) it sets the date of death of the author at 1936. I imagine many authors whose works were created before 1923 would still be alive in 1936 and so this negates the axiom "works published before 1923 are public domain," correct? --fissionchips303 01:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it looks as if it had to say not "if all the conditions are satisfied", but "any". I mean, a work published in 1930, with the author dead on 1932 (more than 70 years ago), is in the public domain (isn't it), even if it was published after 1923. Can someone clarify it? --81.38.183.95 12:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
No, not correct. Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death. For a work already under the first term of its copyright as of January 1, 1978, the first term lasted 28 years, followed by an automatic copyright renewal of 67 years, for a total of 95 years. Any copyright still in its renewal term as of 1998 has a copyright term of 95 years from the date copyright was originally secured. — Walloon 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like "either of the first two and none of the last two" to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.176.72 (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cuban Copyright

I'm not sure where to pose this question, so I'll ask it here:

Several images related to the subject of Cuba are currently marked All cuban images before 1997 are considered in Public Domain as they did not sign the Berne Convention pact until 1997 (See, for example, Image:FidelGuerilla.JPG)

Now, as far as I understand, this only applies if copyright on the images had already expired in Cuba prior to Cuba signing the convention in 1997. [2] (If I'm reading this incorrectly, please let me know.)

As such, I'm questioning whether these images should in fact be listed as PD. Does anyone know what copyright, if any, these images would have originally held in Cuba, and the length of said copyright would have been?

Thanks. -- 156.34.208.152 06:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A question

In 2003, A Perfect Circle covered the Mephis Minnie song When the Levee Breaks (also famously covered by Led Zeppelin) for their album eMOTIVe. The album liner notes state it's "public domain", but the song is from 1929 and Mephis Minnie died in 1973! Why is this song public domain? I thought that only things done before 1923 are public domain? --62.47.40.114 12:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

All this applies only in the US, but while everything printed before 1923 is in the public domain, many works published between 1923 and 1989 fell into the public domain because they weren't registered properly or weren't renewed. Non-American works were restored to copyright, but many American works from that period are still out of copyright.--Prosfilaes 23:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the article, not everything published before 1923 is in public domain. Only if the author died more than 70 years ago. --81.38.183.95 12:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is never really clear about this; the pre-1923 rule is good for the US. When it says only if the author died more than 70 years ago, it's speaking globally.--Prosfilaes 19:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public domain government of India website

I had created a Template to be used for Images and resources that will be copied from Government of India website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-India-Gov

This need to be refined and made short and content worthy. Requires help. Chanakyathegreat 15:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening" by Robert Frost

"Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening", a poem by Robert Frost, first appeared in the March 7, 1923 edition of the weekly magazine, "The New Republic." It appeared without any notice of copyright. However the entire magazine WAS copyrighted as is the practice of most periodicals. The magazine was copyrighted on March 8, 1923.

On November 15, 1923 Robert Frost copyrighted a book of his poetry called "New Hampshire." "New Hampshire" contained the poem "Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening."

"New Hampshire" was renewed the appropriate 28 years later on 9/20/51. However, the March 7, 1923 edition of "The New Republic" was NOT renewed.

Therefore, is the poem in public domain because it first appeared without notice of copyright? Or is it a copyrighted work because "New Hampshire" was copyrighted and properly renewed? Or would that make a difference since "New Hampshire" was copyrighted eight months AFTER the poem's original publication? OR did the original "total edition" copyright of "The New Republic" March 7 issue keep it under copyright until "New Hampshire" was renewed in 1951, even though "The New Republic" itself was not renewed? Or is there yet another law, etc. that pertains to this that may affect this question(s)?

Thank you to anyone who can shed any light on this. Jkfischer 03:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Without examining whether "The New Republic" is copyrighted, I point out that the copyright only applies to what was in that issue of the magazine. If that issue is public domain, only that copy of the poem would be PD. You wouldn't be able to take the poem from a copyrighted publication. Someone would have to get a copy of the poem from the PD magazine and type it in. That version would have whatever licensing the creator places on it, and could be reused if its licensing allows that. (SEWilco 16:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC))
Pure copying doesn't make a new copyright; see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and Feist v. Rural. Take the Raven, to ignore the hard parts of the original question. You could take a copy of the Raven from anywhere provided that it is the same as one clearly in the public domain. If someone types in the Raven from a public domain publication, you could use it whether or not they liked it, provided that you don't have any form of contract with that person.--Prosfilaes 18:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right. But there might be more than one version. The reference to "the poem" assumes there is one version, and if you don't start from the PD version then you have to figure out if you definitely have the same version which is in the PD. (SEWilco 18:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC))
I suspect you'd have to ask a lawyer. The magazine copyright covered the contents; whether the renewal for New Hampshire in the same year as the magazine would have been renewed covered the copyright on the poem is a harder question.--Prosfilaes 18:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright in the UK

Was unable to find the information I was after regarding UK copyright, could someone answer our questions here? Thanks. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 14:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Listing of Public Domain Literature

I would find this extremely worthwhile information to have. Can someone start a listing of literature in the public domain? Wikisource probably doesn't yet include everything in PD, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.99.87 (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2007) (UTC)

  • No, no, this is a bad bad idea! Public domain varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, depends on what type of law we're talking about (copyright, trademark, etc.), and is a lot of works. --lquilter 02:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we could pick out the best link out of this search http://www.google.com/search?q=Public+Domain+Literature, and put it in external links 75.15.236.62
Perhaps you can be more specific on what the goal is? A list of PD literature would have to include everything published before certain dates. Just using a 1922 date, consider that there was a lot of stuff printed before 1922. (SEWilco 18:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Plagiarism

How does the public domain status of a work relate to plagiarism? My assumption would be that the verbatim copying of a public domain work would still be plagiarism. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 13:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The public domain status only is relevant to the legality of copying. Plagiarism requires presenting the work as being by someone other than the original author. (SEWilco 16:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

I see several articles that say that the content comes from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Usually those pages are simply marked with the {{1911}} tag. I've often wondered if copying verbatim from the encyclopedia was ok for those articles or if paraphrasing, etc was necessary. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It is PD, so copying verbatim is OK. Copyediting and NPOV editing may be necessary. See Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica and Category:1911 Britannica templates. (SEWilco 04:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

Copyrighted material may be used without permission under fair use. Authors reusing any portion of copyrighted material or work in the public domain are ethically or professionally obligated to acknowledged the original author's contribution. Failure to acknowledge the original author's contribution is plagiarism. Paradoxos 00:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Band

There is a band called Public Domain but they weren't very notable. I think they only released a couple of singles (one of which I own). but they had probably come and gone within 12 months. Mglovesfun 08:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revoking a release to the public domain?

If an image is uploaded to Wikipedia (and released into the public domain), can that decision be withdrawn and the image deleted? Or once done can never be undone? -- Pesco 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but I think that if the photographer has the original, the photographer (or whoever the copyright holder is) can do whatever they want with the original. Copies of the original probably can be put under whatever license the photographer wants to use. That would not affect the Wikipedia copy. If it really matters you might ask a lawyer. (SEWilco 20:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Horrible section of text

“

Another example would be Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Being an abstract idea it has therefore never been patentable. After Darwin constructed his theory, he did not disclose it for over a decade (see Development of Darwin's theory). He could have kept his manuscript in his desk drawer forever but once he published the idea, the idea itself entered public domain. However, the carrier of his ideas, in the form of a book titled The Origin of Species, was covered by copyright (though, since he died in 1882, the copyright has since expired).

 ”

That section of text, taken from the 'disclaimer of interest' section, reads very badly, and something about it makes me feel cynical of its sincerity. Probably just personal paranoia, but it looks, to me, like it may have been added by someone with an extreme viewpoint, or something... Whoever added it and for whatever reason, it seems slightly out of place, badly written and rather odd. J Milburn 19:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The prose isn't very good, but I don't see any other problems overall. It's true, all theories are public domain.--Orthologist 16:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Public Domain

Why has the criteria all of a suddent changed from: PD-old = This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.

to

This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years. ?? Milliot 26 March, 2007

[edit] Merge All Rites Reversed

All Rites Reversed is a minor topic that I think is probably not going to grow any larger than it is. Its definition is identical to that of the public domain so I think that a merger into this article makes a whole lot of sense. Thoughts? —mako (talk•contribs) 17:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say to keep them separate - All Rites Reversed has no legal meaning, unlike Public Domain, and it is almost exclusively used in Discordian contexts. Also, I don't know how you'd merge them - mentioning Discordianism here would seem spammy, but redirecting All Rites Reversed to a page that doesn't mention it seems wrong as well. DenisMoskowitz 19:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I also agree, though for perhaps personal reasons: PD is important and should be promoted strongly. Merging it with Discordianist views may taint it for some people. Also, for less personal reasons: a merge should only be done when either two things are the same (not the case here), or one is entirely a subset of the other, in which case the subset should be merged with the superset. Rites Reversed isn't really either a subset or a superset of PD: there is significant overlap.DewiMorgan 12:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree it should be merged. It is not a notable topic in its own right. Some parts should be mentioned in public domain and/or copyleft and some discordian article. Gronky 13:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It should not be merged into this one... If it doesn't deserve it's own article, delete the thing entirely or forward it to some article about the dopes who came up with the term. Putting that info here would just stink this page up. DreamGuy 22:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why PD is not All Rites Reversed

[made as a separate section so as not to confuse the vote counting]

Further to my comment above, some further anti-merge arguments. I am aware that I probably feel too strongly on this issue.

The merge proposal above claims the All Rights Reversed definition "is identical to that of the public domain". This seems impossible to support given the definitions written on each page, articularly the line which explicitly proves the assertion wrong: "Unlike public domain status, All Rites Reversed has no formal legal meaning.".

ARR is nothing more or less than a copyright license. This means:

  • the US Government may not release stuff under the ARR banner; their stuff is PD.
  • After its copyright term expired, a work may not be released under ARR; only under PD.
  • American citizens can legally release their stuff under ARR, and have it considered as ARR, without making any specific effort to distribute; but to release it under PD and have it legally considered as PD, they must fulfil the conditions for a work to enter PD.
  • PD stuff may be re-released under ARR by anyone at any time.
  • ARR stuff may not be re-released under PD without fulfilling the conditions for a work to enter PD.

These differences, particularly the last, make the distinction clear: ARR is a copyright license.

It's all very discordian: there's no one single Kopyleft agreement, or ARR agreement like there is a GNU one - but definitely, from a quick Google search for Kopyleft and ARR, even "Act like PD" isn't overwhelmingly the primary meaning, and I couldn't find any explanations of KopyLeft or ARR that claimed it meant that.

However, even in that meaning, as the most liberal possible copyright license, which effectively says "Take this and treat it as if it was public domain", it's just a legal trick to try to allow citizens to release stuff under a copyright license as close to PD as US copyright law will permit. It is, and will most likely always remain, legally untested. The only way it will ever be tested is in the very unlikely case where an ARR author tries to revoke his licence. If it is then ruled that ARR represents an "irrevocable, universal, transferable license to copy without limitation", then it will have withstood the test, and ARR documents can be treated as de-facto PD, until sufficient time has passed for them to fall out of copyright and become genuine PD. Alternatively, it could be interpreted as a non-enforceable "promise not to sue". Either way, it would be interpreted as a license, not as PD.

Here is the copyleft notice from FreeSharing.org, via the talk page on ARR:

All information on this site is CopyLeft (K) 2005, All Rights Reversed and considered to be eternally in the public domain for non-profit usage. You may freely use, duplicate or modify any information on this site provided it remains in the public domain.

(emphases mine, to highlight the parts that indicate this is clearly a license, not a release (or even an effort to release) onto the real public domain).

Other sites ([3], [4]) use (K) to mean "attribute properly" rather than "noncommercial use".

(Also, there is clearly no way in which PD is in any way "identical" to the book "All Rites Reversed" described on that page.)

Finally, the lesser claim that ARR is "probably not going to grow any larger than it is" may prove false since there are at least two proposals for changes in the talk page (no, neither are by me, and possibly both are rather old: at least one is), and if the merge vote goes to "no", then I'll probably clean up these arguments, and plonk it in the ARR talk section too, maybe even add add references and stuff, and put bits of it into the article, if people out there who are genuinely confusing the two topics.

An encyclopaedia is for unambiguously defining specific terms, not conflating sorta-similar terms. DewiMorgan 03:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patent expiration term

The article says that "in most countries, patents expire 20 years after they are filed". I thought it is "after they are granted". Paul Koning 15:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how to put in public domain

It is amazingly difficult to find out how to put original material into the public domain. The article is good but could still be improved. Google does not have a single match for "how to put in public domain"!

-69.87.204.109 19:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See also http://www.saint-andre.com/thoughts/publicdomain.html Who's Afraid of the Public Domain? Peter Saint-Andre 2006-12-30
For thoughts on how to why to do so.-69.87.204.109 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Pan

DreamGuy, please explain why Peter Pan is in the public domain in the UK. The British law is clear; the hospital has a certain subset of the standard rights of copyright forever.--Prosfilaes 18:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not how copyright works. When I saw news reports about the situation I saw nothing on any law, and the section of the hospital web page is unclear and certainly not an unbiased source. News reports a few years back made it clear that Peter Pan *was* in the public domain, and that the hospital was merely trying to guilt people into paying up anyway. It's not uncommon for organizations (museums, pulishers, etc.) to try to claim copyrights they do not have. If a law had been passed to grant the hospital certain rights to payment, the book would still be in public domain but just with a (rather ridiculous and not enforceable worldwide) side condition. DreamGuy 19:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The link isn't to the hospital web page; it's to a site that hosts a copy of British law, and it's a link to the relevant section of the law. Copyright's not enforceable worldwide; there are many works still in copyright in the UK and EU under life+70 that aren't in copyright in the US or life+50 countries. It's clear that under the definition of public domain given in the introduction, it's not in the public domain; there exists a legal entity that can enforce proprietary rights on the work.--Prosfilaes 08:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
So, no response? Brief news reports are never the greatest of sources, and "[w]hen I saw news reports about the situation I saw nothing on any law" is a lousy argument; now we're telling you about the law. The link is just a convenience; we're citing British law here, and would be fully cited even without the link. Unless you can provide some evidence that the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Schedule 6) doesn't in fact say what we and that link claim it does, please don't delete that cited fact.
Supporting links:
  • The Hospital
  • A third party commenter
  • Peter Pan which also cites the law and
  • [5] the UK government itself, which fairly clearly states that "301. The provisions of Schedule 6 have effect for conferring on trustees for the benefit of the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, London, a right to a royalty in respect of the public performance, commercial publication, broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service of the play "Peter Pan" by Sir James Matthew Barrie, or of any adaptation of that work, notwithstanding that copyright in the work expired on 31st December 1987.", even though it doesn't spell out Schedule 6 here.
So don't tell me about reliable sources; we have multiple confirming reliable sources here.--Prosfilaes 13:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Third Party???

Is the public domain a real third party or an invalid third party? Jonghyunchung 20:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public Domain worldwide?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Deep_sea_vent_chemistry_diagram.jpg --> Licensing: This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government ... So it can't be used freely worldwide? ALu06 18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

For the U.S., federal government works are not eligible for copyright protection (17 USC 105). It stands to reason that this applies world-wide, for it is not evident how the U.S. government could assert copyright in some other country over a work that cannot be copyrighted by its own laws in the originating country (the U.S.). Still, there are differing opinions, see the CENDI Copyright FAQ list, 3.1.7 and a discussion on that at the LibraryLaw Blog. For all practical purposes, however, we can assume works produced by the U.S. government or its employees in the course of their duties to be copyright-free and in the public domain world-wide.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain) ALu06 18:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how the different juristictions interact? For example if a work is PD in Australia but not in the USA then which 'distributions' over the internet would constitute a copyright infringement:

  • a user in USA downloads a copy from a server in Australia? (does the distribution happen at the server or at the client?)
  • a user in the USA downloads a copy from some proxy server in Australia? (is the proxy server doing the infringing distribution?)
  • a user does a download from Australia, but while pptped from an office network resulting in the packets getting routed through USA and the Australian server apparently distributing to the USA?

Is project Gutenberg exposed to legal risk from hosting works that are in copyright somewhere in the world (e.g. UK)? This might be an interesting area to cover in the article. 211.27.106.137 02:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media in the public domain

The article incorrectly stated that Alfred Hitchcock's "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is in the Public Domain. The US rights were re-asserted by Carlton Film Distributors Ltd in 1997. Davepattern 06:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freely obtained

To me, the whole "Freely obtained does not mean free to republish" section reads like an editorial. Anyone else agree? — Walloon 03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Something like that section helps reduce confusion between several meanings of the word "free". (SEWilco 04:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Public Domain a proper name?

Sometimes I see Public Domain capitalize and sometimes I see it not capitalized. Does anyone know if it's a proper name? Rocket000 (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disgusting intro

The introduction of this article is simply disgusting. It only explains the consequences of public domain, not what it essentially is. Can someone either explain me why this is or change it? Thanks in advance, tulcod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulcod (talk • contribs) 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

K, seems like it has been done by JasonAQuest --Tulcod (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hungary PD: Artistic photographs?

According to Hungarian copyright law (tranlation available from unesco), only "artistic" photgraphs are covered by copyright. Anyone know what definition of "artistic" they are using? Does this mean historic photographs taken for documentary rather than artistic purposes are Public Domain? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Can one re-release a work in public domain, under a different licence (full copyright, GFDL etc.) Guy0307 (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

no, unless substantial changes are made to the work. Mackinaw (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
yes you can. note, if you create a work you can release it under GFDL, but you still own it and can use the work under any other terms, including within a fully copyrighted collection. no one else can do that, anyone else picking up the GFDL work could only distribute it under GFDL. likewise, if you release it as public domain, you are still not prevented from releasing it under any other terms, including fully copyrighted. you could collect royalties and so on for permissions to reproduce the copyrighted work. however, if someone noticed it was also available under public domain they could choose to use that version instead and not pay you anything. but i am sure you would be fully within your rights to re-release it, you would be doing nothing in violation of any law. i am not a lawyer, however. doncram (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)