Wikipedia talk:Non-US copyrights

Merge and redirect with commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory

Those pages seem mostly about the same topic. Shouldn't they be merged? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote on Commons, the pages have a slightly different focus. This is more about the copyright rules for non-U.S. works in the United States, while the Commons page is more about the copyright rules for non-U.S. works in the source country. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The project page states that it documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is difficult to envisage how a redirect to the proposed page on Commons could fulfil that purpose. 9carney (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

An RfC on hosting content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S.

You may be interested in the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#RfC:_Hosting_content_from_countries_that_do_not_have_copyright_relations_with_the_U.S.. Your input would be appreciated. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Andorra reference link is dead

404 page not found, where's the replacement? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Antigua and Barbuda link is likely. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Azerbaijan too, seems all portal.unesco.org links are no longer working anymore. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Outdated references, particularly 1923 and January 1, 1923

On the page, there are a number of references to the year 1923 or the date January 1, 1923 as a cutoff for US copyright. It would seem that at least some of these references are outdated; perhaps they could be replaced with {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}} instead of 1923 to make the page somewhat more up-to-date and future-proof. --Elegie (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

In the "General" section, there is a statement about "published after 1922". Would it be more accurate to replace the 1922 with {{#expr: {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}} - 1 }} instead? Later on, in the same section, there is the statement "run until at least December 31, 2018". It might be advisable to replace 2018 with {{CURRENTYEAR}}.

On the page, there appears to be two instances of the statement "published after January 1, 1923". Aside from the year 1923, it would seem more accurate to say "Published on or after January 1, XXXX" instead of "Published after January 1, XXXX" (with XXXX being the current cutoff year for US copyright.)

In the "Subsisting copyrights" section, there is the statement "(in practice 72 years or less, as of August 2006)." Is this statement outdated? One possibility might be to change the statement to something like (in practice {{#expr: 1995 - ( {{CURRENTYEAR}} - 95 ) }} years or less, as of {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}). (The "72 years" may have been calculated as 1995 - 1923 = 72.) --Elegie (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Your two recent edits to make the page more up-to-date are appreciated. In looking at the updated page, in the Subsisting copyrights subsection, there is a reference, "the period between 1925." that seems unclear. A possible alternative statement might be:

the period between {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}} and the date of restoration (in practice {{#expr: 1995 - ( {{CURRENTYEAR}} - 95 ) }} years or less, as of {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}.)

Another possible alternative statement might be:

the period between {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}} and the date of restoration.

--Elegie (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Seems like I didn't proofread it well enough. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I made a different change that I previously mentioned, which was to change two instances of "published after January 1, 1925" to "published on or after January 1, 1925" instead. From what I understand, it is likely the case that a work would have to have been published *before* 1925 in order to be out of copyright in the US. --Elegie (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Attribution notice

I copied parts of the text on numerous images on Wikimedia Commons starting on March 4, 2020. While they are numerous, they all link back to the main project page, whether in the edit summaries or the file's talk page. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Table Specific country information - Dead link for Germany

The current reference link to wipo.int is dead ("Page not found"). I did a little research and found that the relevant §64 was only changed once due to a 1995 law. That law deleted a second sentence (a ten years extension option for post mortem publications after more than 60 years). So the first sentence (granting 70 pma) has remained unchanged since the original law came in force in 1965. Consequently I will change the link to the current version of §64 on gesetze-im-internet.de (official website of the Federal Ministry of Justice). If this is too bold please explain why. ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Laos and Turkmenistan

This page currently has some complicated logic to deal with works originating from Laos or Turkmenistan. According to Circular 38a, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic has been a Berne Convention participant since March 2012, and Turkmenistan since May 2016. Does this page need updating? If so, what are the new rules? Wikiacc (¶) 02:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2021

Since 2021, Uzbek law has amended for extending copyright for 70 years. Source: 49.150.116.127 (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: Please outline exactly where this is noted in the document you provided. It's over 14,000 words. I did a quick glance through and didn't see that length of time mentioned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like it happened in this law, which changed 50 to 70, effective August 2021. I don't see any indication which works it applied to. Presumably it's not retroactive, as usually in those cases there are other parts of law granting some limited amnesty for people already exploiting works that ceased to be PD. Most of the time, you would expect the new terms to apply to any work still under copyright by the old law, meaning there is a 20-year freeze on expirations there. But, it's also possible that it only applies to works created from the effective date forward (such as the term changes in the U.S. 1976 Copyright Act). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on March 11 2023

There is a tag stating that a time is outdated. Under General. This isn't applicable and should be removed. 75.174.23.229 (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Subsisting copyrights

Point 2 under "Subsisting copyrights" claims:

Did the source country have copyright relations with the United States on January 1, 1929?

YES: The work should be assumed to be protected by US copyright. It should only be used on Wikipedia if it falls within the fair use policy.

Didn't such works need to comply with US formalities (copyright notice, renewal) in order to be protected by US copyright, just like US-created works? If so, who says the work should be assumed to be protected by US copyright? If I find a Canadian work from 1930 with no copyright notice and/or no US renewal, that didn't qualify for URAA restoration, shouldn't the work be public domain in the US? Wikiacc (¶) 02:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

South Sudan.

At Wikimedia Commons, we have South Sudan listed as a country that URAA doesn't apply to and South Sudan is not listed on the page here. So someone sort of update with South Sudan should be added to the page. Abzeronow (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)