Commons talk:PD files

Has review stopped?

Has review stopped? If so I guess all the images from Category:Images from the New York Public Library killed it. I think these images should be moved to a subcategory if a review is needed. Anyway I added a link on Category:PD files for review to find images not from the New York Public Library. Hope it will start process again :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea on finding non NYPL images and moving NYPL to a subcat. yea, the massive dump of those images didn't help because a lot of their precise dates can't be determine. I still tag images PDr when I verify them. Can you write a bot to make the subcat thing happen? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Or even better, maybe we should just remove the NYPL ones from the cat. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I can easily do both things. If we move to a subcategory there is no reason not to do that now. But if we just remove the "need check" should I do that now or should we wait a few days to see if anyones say "no wait!"? --MGA73 (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say remove the NYPL ones now. If anyone says anything point them here. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Bot is running :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Very nice. Would you like to notify reviewers that this has been done? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oooooops I missed this notice... Well I hoped reviewers was watching this page. Still think a notice is a good idea? --MGA73 (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes please. I've reviewed some of the ones left in the category needing review but I think others have stopped looking at it. If you could post a notice to those listed as PD reviewers, maybe it'd get interest started again. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Now let's hope for someone to return :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

en:File:Sheena18.jpg

It seems that this image en:File:Sheena18.jpg is {{PD-US-no-renewal}} and that it could be copied on Commons. Not found in the copyright renewal database [1]. Any views? SV1XV (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Prob good to move. Let's get other views though. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

For something made in 1952, it would have had to be renewed in 1979 or 1980. That means it is not in the Stanford database, but is rather online at copyright.gov -- so searches need to be done there. Also, keep in mind that the Stanford database is only for book copyrights, I think -- not graphical work, nor even periodicals I don't think. Those other types of works had their renewals published in separate volumes, which have not been available online -- but I think that is recently changing, see here. They used to just have 1950/51 available there, but it looks like more is coming online -- if so, soon we may be able to look for copyright registrations of photos and other artwork, which we have long simply deleted due to lack of ability to search. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Nockeby torg stadsplan 1932.jpg

This is a Swedish official work (map/plan) of 1932 and according to the uploader it is free. He had tagged it as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} but I changed it to {{PD-because}}, adding his explanation. However COM:L#Sweden is not very clear about this type of work. Could someone, who is familiar with Swedish copyright law and customs, confirm that I tagged it correctly? SV1XV (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

PD review category empty

I've just cleared Category:PD files for review. It's empty for what I think is the first time ever. Thanks to all who helped. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is so dissapointing... You clear the category and no "Wow... Good work!!!"? Well I think this is good work... "YEEEAAAAHHH" :-)

I just removed 200+ New York Public Library files from the category per discussion above. Hope this helps. --MGA73 (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Very old masonic emblems

This web page: http://karenswhimsy.com/masonic-emblems.shtm contains a number of very old masonic seals. Should they be be uploaded on Commons, in Category:Masonic graphics ? SV1XV (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the drawings are PD-1923. You'll likely find better resolutions though by finding the original source, such as here (Google books has a copy as well). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Works first published outside the United States

The sequence of questions for determining copyright status of works published outside the united states is a bit odd. The first question is "Was this foreign work first published in the period from 1923 to 1977?". If the work was published before 1923, then the answer is no, and the instruction is "Step 5". Step 5 begins: "Was this post-1977 work...". There should at least be *some* guidance for works published outside the US before 1923. If the situation is so horribly complicated that the questionnaire cannot possibly answer the question, then it should say so. --Amble (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Other than sound recordings, anything published before 1923 is now public domain in the United States. The page should make that more clear, though it is in the graphic on the right. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but the graphic on the right doesn't apply. It explicitly addresses works first published in the US. The work I'm looking at was first published in Norway in 1922. --Amble (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There's also a table at the help page Help:Public_domain#Published_outside_the_United_States, which lists "in compliance with US formalities" as a condition. It's not specified what that means. Naively, it sounds as though works that were published outside the US 1909-1922 with a proper copyright notice are now public domain, and those that originally lacked a copyright notice may still be under copyright. That seems odd, but could well be true. --Amble (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There is one odd court case which throws a little doubt on stuff published 1909-1922 in the 9th Circuit (based on considering some works -- mainly those written in a non-English language -- to be technically "unpublished"), so yes, compliance with copyright formalities would remove the ambiguity that that court case used, and would make them definitely PD even in the 9th Circuit. In general though, items published outside the U.S. before 1923 are considered public domain here (we have been ignoring that 9th Circuit ruling, as it has been heavily criticized). The U.S. uses its own copyright terms regardless of whether the work is foreign or domestic; for works published in 1922 or before the maximum term was 75 years from publication, and that is what the URAA extended to. The term was increased to 95 years from publication in 1998, so all works still under copyright at the time (i.e. published 1923 or later) got the extended term, whether foreign or domestic. See Commons:Hirtle chart. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sufficiently out of my depth that I would hesitate to edit the checklist here; but it would be useful if some of what you just said -- or at least a helpful link -- coult be inserted into the page. --Amble (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images

See above, regarding a recent change in Flickr's license options, and the implications for Commons. Ultra7 (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)