Template talk:PD/Archive 1

Archive 1

Older discussion

This needs to be altered. It seems to have been designed for copyright-expired images in the US. Some images are PD in all juristictions. Should world-wide PD be the default? Secretlondon 13:01, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Morwen 13:10, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Looks like the message has already been used on some images and I'm not sure if the change applies to all of those. Further the message should probably be protected. -- User:Docu

---

The message currently provides for works "released into the public domain by the copyright holder" or for those where "copyright has expired", however, this looks silly on images such as the English flag, which are surely public domain but don't fall into either category. No one has ever held copyright on some things, so they can't be said to have been released or to have entered the public domain through expiration. You couldn't copyright a ubiquitous religious symbol like a Christian cross for example, so how are such things supposed to be tagged?

I was going to change the message to something along the lines of:

"This image has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright. This applies worldwide."

but someone has protected the page. From the history there appears to be no dispute, in which case I would call this an abuse of the protection privelige. If this is official policy it seems somewhat opposed to wiki ideals. Would someone with the necessary access consider making the change?

— Trilobite (Talk) 17:36, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that locking templates is an abuse. This template's category should specify a sort order, but it cannot be changed. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 18:10, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A number of templates and other system pages are kept in a protected state if they relate to copyrights. With respect to sort order, how exactly are you suggesting we change the template? Does category sorting work when applied via template? --Michael Snow 20:57, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this protection is justified except for a very few pages, such as Wikipedia:Designated agent and Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. There are a number of edits I would like to make to some of the image tags, generally to make them more consistent and aesthetically pleasing. Not having administrative priveliges I am judged a potential vandal who wants to cause legal problems for Wikipedia. This is not true for me and it's not true for just about all of the other registered contributors. All there needs to be is a prominent notice on the talk page of articles and templates which are currently protected under this policy explaining why care should be taken when editing them. As things stand this is unnecessary concentration of power in the hands of sysops. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you want to take up the protection issue generally, I would suggest the appropriate place to do that is Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, not the talk page for a single template. Nobody accused you of wanting to vandalize just because you're not an administrator.

In the meantime, if you have suggestions to improve individual templates, you are welcome to make them on the talk pages. That system seems to have worked in the past, as you made a suggestion here and it was adopted. Accordingly, I'm trying to get a clearer picture of what changes Eequor wants, since it's not clear to me what she's suggesting. --Michael Snow 21:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. To clarify, I don't mean to suggest that anyone accused me directly of wanting to vandalise, but that the idea that non-sysops are irresponsible contributors who will wreck important copyright notices is implicit in the protection of the page. The present system does work, but aside from its inefficiency it is undesirable for the reasons I've explained above. I may well follow your suggestion and bring this up at the protection policy page, but it's not something I feel particularly strongly about: just a minor grievance. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A suggestion

The template currently states that the PD status applies worldwide. Yet when it comes to the expired works, making sound judgment of if a work is public domain world wide or only in certain jurisdictions is not easy. So I would suggest that this sentence be removed.

Instead, it may say that it is under public domain under the U.S., for example.

Or we can use two templates, one for global PD, and the other for PD in the US. Tomos 06:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Because nobody replied on this suggestion, I will give some explanation.

In the U.S., a copyrighted work loses its protection if it is published before 1923. This is due to the history of copyrght law in the U.S. The copyright protection was given in the past based on things like proper registration, copyright notice, and publication of the work.

In some other countries, like Germany and Japan, the copyright protection is defined as author's life + x years. Even when a work is published before 1923, therefore, it could well be under protection in those countries.

For this reason, I think making sound judgment if a work is in public domain "worldwide" requires a certain amount of background knowledge and research (such as when the author had died, where is the original country for the given work as defined by Berne Convention). Rather than asking these research, English Wikipedia should just say "this applies to the U.S. and not necessarily other countries." Tomos 22:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are correct. I imaginge this iwas originally the reason for a separate tempalte for the US, but it still appears inadequate. However, limiting this to the US creates new questions:

• What good is that information to the world?
• Is it even relevant, where our pages are fetched from servers in other countries, like currently the French servers?

Is there a different way to handle this?

Aliter 16:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Redirect

The copyright link leads to copyrights when it should lead to copyright, as this is a redirect on Wikipedia. 119 06:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tweak suggested

I wuld like to see either:

"Either this image has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright. This applies worldwide."

or

"This image has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, or its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright. This applies worldwide."

I suggest this becausue I misread the message myself, somehow mistaking the second clause as explanatory for the first. In other words, I read it wrongly, (although it is quite clear when considered for a second) and I think others might too. Comments?

As mentioned above, I don't think it applies worldwide, and I don't think images can be ineligible for copyright either. But if the current wording is too confusing, then it should probably say up front that there's no copyright, and sum up the possibilities afterwards. Aliter 16:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PD user is prettier

is prettier than

{{PD}}

---

I'm all for using a variation of the one from the Commons too:

This image has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright. This applies worldwide.

♪ Craigy ♫ 22:21, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Template standardisation hold? Bah. - Omegatron 22:37, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I replaced the style with a modified version of that used at Commons (preserving the en.wikipedia text), entirely ignorant that someone had already suggested it here. — Dan | Talk 04:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Items without copyright

Above Trilobite argues that some items have never held copyright, and therefore their copyright can neither be released nor expired. As the example of the English flag shows, this holds for items created before copyright laws existed. An image ocould still be copyright, however, even if it depicted such an item. As we are only concerned with digital images, our images probably stem from the copyright era, so the original wording of this template does apply. Aliter 16:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Add public domain image?

I'm thinking if you guys put a public domain image (shown right). Do you have any suggestions?--Acela Express 04:17, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Beat you to it by four minutes! — Dan | Talk 04:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

can someone edit this template

so it sits nicely next to the metadata box rather than overlapping the bloody thing. Plugwash 03:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, the 'copyright logo' image currently overlaps the purple border, making the template look a mess. However, if you look at the previous version, you'll see that it has only been broken since the last edit (in which Zocky attempted to "standardize license templates with Template:Image-license", unfortunately failing to take picture size into account. I'd have a go at fixing it myself if it wasn't protected. (Interestingly, Template:Image-license isn't protected, but I don't want to try and edit that in case I mess up all the other image templates) -- Gurch 12:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• This request is now obsolete given that the template is now depecrated and has been completely redone. howcheng {chat} 20:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

slight error

PD-old is for over 100 years PD-OLD-70 is for over 70 years. PD-US should probablly get a metion too as many many images tagged with this are actually PD only in the us.

• Done. howcheng {chat} 20:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

suggesting public domain tag

I'd suggest the creation of a tag for works published before 1978 without a copyright notice, and works published without a copyright notice before 1989 where the copyright was not registered within five years. Also, it should be noted if the work is PD is the US only, or in other juristictions.

Prototype:

This image is in the public domain in the United States and possibly other jurisdictions, because it was published before January 1, 1978 without a copyright notice and/or any claim to copyright. This image could also be in the public domain if it was published between January 1, 1978 and May 1, 1989 without a copyright notice, and the error was not corrected within five years.
See Copyright.

--Fallout boy 03:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki link to vi:

Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:

<noinclude>[[vi:Tiêu bản:Phạm vi công cộng]]</noinclude>

Thanks.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 00:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Somebody please edit this template...

...to replace the phrase "for photos of old paintings" (when describing Template:PD-art) with a phrase that will make it clear that scanned images of sufficiently old art, or scanned old photos, are covered. ("for images of old artworks" or something would work.) Thanks, Andrew Levine 03:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Errr...

Can someone change the link to the copyright tags page BACK to the WikipediA one? They aren't exact drop in replacements and are likely to confuse people.

Done. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

includeonly/subst magic

That approach fails it, see screenshot. The bottom line, really, is that we don't want image tags to be subst'ed anyway (for several reasons, not the least of which is that copyright law or policy pertaining to to a certain class of images could change at any given time. Additionally, proliferating the substed forms of various stages in the evolution of any particular template would make OrphanBot's life a miserable one.). — Jun. 9, '06[15:49] <freak|talk>

interlang

Please add following interlang:

[[ja:Template:PD]]
[[ko:틀:PD]]

--っ (Tsutsu) 13:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)