Template talk:PD-old-100

message: It is a bit perturbing when there is a major change to a template that has already been applied to many articles. -- Infrogmation 07:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The fact that the actual photographed object (e.g. a map, book, picture etc.) is in PD does not imply that the author of the photography does not hold his copyrights for it. In other words a recent reproduction of an object does not have to be in PD even if the object itself is. Lysy 01:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For "slavish reproductions" of 2D art, it actually does in the US and probably the UK too. There's not sufficient originality for copyright. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. PRiis 21:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rights to the photographic copy 

message: Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:
 vi:Tiêu bản:PD-old
Thanks.
 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki link to vi: 

message: I've been seeing many examples of this template continuing to be misused (for example, being put on an image 100 years old when the author did not happen to die immediatly after creating the image). What the hell is going on here? Are people still using the template based on the former radically different meaning for "PD-old" here on Wikipedia of a few years ago, or is there something in the wording of the template that challenges some people's reading comprehension, or is it some slew of deliberate vandalism? Perhaps we should get rid of this misused template all together? -- Infrogmation 19:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall correctly, copyright expires in the US after the author's death, then 70 years. This template however mentions 100 years, so it is probably a case of people not reading the template before using it... or perhaps people reading it but not understanding it. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had a sort of stoke attack when reading this template, i thought that copyright was extended, please better specify this in template :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.220.110.172 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Widely misused template

message: Please add interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is:
 sr:Шаблон:ЈВ-стара
Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 06:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added, thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia 

message: Please add th:แม่แบบ:PD-old for interwiki link. Thanks --Jutiphan | Talk - 05:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Y Done –  12:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  interwiki link 

message: Please revert Haukurth's recent edit to this template. Works are in the public domain in the United States either 70 years after the death of the author OR if they were published before 1923 or one of the other cases documented at Template:PD-US. This template is now highly misleading. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I reverted myself. But I think the template is more misleading now since it heavily implies that the US has some sort of 100 pma rule which it distinctly doesn't. In my opinion every PD image should have a tag documenting why it is in the public domain in the United States. Haukur 08:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you elaborate on why you think my version was misleading but the previous/current version is not? To establish public domain status in the United States we must have a publication date. The death date of the author, so heavily emphasized in this template, is ususally only relevant for foreign authors. Haukur 08:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I take it back. I am not an expert on copyright law and based on  I see that publication date is highly important. My apologies; you can change it back. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just an amateur too and I'm open to any suggestions for a clear wording. My idea was to move towards a system where every image had a specific PD-US tag in addition to information on time since author's death (which is highly important for reusers abroad). Maybe that's not the best way to go, I don't know. Any reform is hard since most image description pages are severely lacking in data. Most don't have a publication date, many don't have any clear information on the author, often the source information is very incomplete. In any case I think your Doc subpages are quite helpful. Haukur 21:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please revert 

message: It appears that the vast majority of  and  photographs are mistagged, due to a lack of information about who created a photograph or when it was first published. I'm not sure whether these should be deleted or not, and I've opened an RFC here. Opinions and ideas would be most welcome -- just go to the RFC and comment there. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistagged PD-Old and PD-US images 

message: Could an admin that sees this change image to file? Audio files also use this, :File:United States Navy Band - O Canada.ogg is one such example. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:05pm • 07:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: . Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request