Template talk:PD-art

message: * These are some other image copyright tags that rely on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.:
**  
** 
** 
** 
* Also consider the tags listed at  
* Or the category Image copyright tags
* or the list/description page Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All
Abecedare 16:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Looking for the right copyright tag?

message: Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:
 vi:Tiêu bản:PD-art
Thanks.
 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 03:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  — Catherine\talk 04:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki link to vi: 

message: Does this case of public domain apply for coins?  → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 18:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. See discussion here and 'official' counsel here. Of course, coins taken from websites such as Wildwinds are permitted through the use of  copyright tag. --Steerpike 13:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coins 

message: Please fix the accidental piped redirect leading to United States of America rather than United States. Thanks! Darkildor 00:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: This is nit-picky, but court cases should be in italics. Please put  around "Bridgeman v. Corel". —Chowbok 21:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Italics

message: Please add th:แม่แบบ:PD-art for interwiki link. Thanks --Jutiphan | Talk - 05:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  interwiki link 

message: I have created  for use when a photo of a PD 2-D artwork has no explict source. Please consider using it in place of this template in proper cases. DES (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  related template 

message: I suggest that we move this template to . This template only applies to 2-D (flat) works of art, but because of its name is often used on images of 3-D works of art. DES (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the newly created  that parallels this tempalte for the 3-d case. DES (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: IMO the tamplate should use the 70 year limit rather than the 100 year one. The reasoning is as follows: This template is meant to be used for "photographs of old 2-d art". AFAIK such images are PD in US if the author of the original work died >70 years ago (as per ) under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp..  
If the author has been dead for >100 years, the original object is PD in some other countries too, but Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., which is just a US district court ruling, does not necessarily hold sway in those countries, so photographs of the otherwise PD object  may still not be PD there. 
So I don't know what using 100 instead of 70 buys us ? The flip side is that using the 100 year limit makes images such as :Image:10 Muharram.jpg (where the artist died in 1929, i.e. 78 years ago)  seemingly unfree and liable to be deleted (see discussion here). Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect, or this topic has been/ should be  discussed elsewhere. Abecedare 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well for the matter of that, as far as US law is concerned, the Life+70 term only applies to works that are unpublished, or that were published after 1977. Any work publised in the US before 1923, or published anywher in the world before 1 July 1909 are PD no mater when the author died. Note that "'Publication' was not explicitly defined in the Copyright Law before 1976, but the 1909 Act indirectly indicated that publication was when copies of the first authorized edition were placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed by the proprietor of the copyright or under his authority.” See this chart for more detail. DES (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the link! I also realized that I can use template  and  for the purpose I was envisioning. The main problem is that many images are mistagged and some editors (including me, till recently) mistakenly think that if an photograph does not qualify under  then it is unfree and should be deleted. Perhaps it would help if the various PD-art realted templates pages were interlinked. Abecedare 16:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See also  DES (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks again. I have edited your  addition to provide a more concise listing of tags that may be immediately relevant. Please revert if you disagree. Abecedare 16:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  100 or 70 ? 

message: This image has been tagged as PD-Art, however a coin is not a 2D work of art, therefore the photographer owns the copyright IMHO. I'm not reverting myself because I don't want to start an edit war. --Cruccone 17:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyright applies. See discussion here and 'official' counsel here. Photographs of coins taken from websites such as Wildwinds are still permitted through the use of  copyright tag. --Steerpike 13:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Domitianus coin.jpg]] 

message: Per discussion with User:Mikegodwin, the wording has been changed slightly. -- Avi (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quoting Bridgeman 

message: Please add :mk:Шаблон:Јд-уметност interwiki. Thanks. --iNkubusse? 11:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: , Alex Muller 19:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  mk interwiki 

message: On the Commons, there is currently a debate going on about whether or not to make the use of  less restrictive (and thus closer to how it is used on the English Wikipedia). Right now on Commons, PD-Art can only be used for images that are public domain both in the U.S. and the country of origin. On the English Wikipedia, we only care about the public domain status in the U.S. This is why we have templates like  for old British portraits and the like. (In Britain and many other European countries, every photograph of a painting gets a brand new copyright.) If you are interested in this issue, please join the debate or vote in the Straw Poll. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible changes to PD-Art on Commons 

message: Think we could set this up to be more like PD-Art on Commons? You know, you go  and it spawns a frame that explains that its still PD, and then the licence inside it. Why this particular template restricts it to 100 years I don't know, cause there are reasons it could be PD in the US other than that. ViperSnake151 18:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please provide the exact code that you propose be added or amended before using the  tag again? Edit requests should be specific. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay..if that's the case

Around the lines of this. ViperSnake151 13:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Done Stifle (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Specifically, please write the documentation subpage (Template:PD-art/doc) then someone will link it. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parameterize 

message: The current version of this template has lost an important detail - that it applies only two two-dimensional works of art.  As currently phrased, it implies that photographs of PD sculptures and the like (eg :File:Michelangelos David.jpg) would be automatically PD, which is not the case.  Either the template should be made a copy of Commons:Template:PD-Art, or at least say "This image of a two-dimensional work of art ...".  I prefer the Commons version because its "faithful photographic reproduction" part also covers the issue of 'creative' photographs not being PD. --dave pape (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: by  - template now reads "and a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright two-dimensional work may not be protected ...". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two-dimensional 

message: To facilitate determining which images should be moved to Commons, I suggest we deprecate  and begin to replace it with  or , as applicable. Another important frequently-encountered combination is PD-art-US works which are anonymous or pseudonymous and whose source country is in the EU - these are PD in the EU and so also candidates for moving to Commons. Dcoetzee 21:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested deprecation 

message: This template contains the following statement:
 The official position of the Wikimedia Foundation is that all reproductions of public domain works should be considered to be in the public domain regardless of their country of origin (even in countries where mere labor is enough to make a reproduction eligible for protection).
I can find no verifiable source to support the assertion that the Wikimedia Foundation has made any official comment of the nature mentioned. As it stands, I think the above statement is false. If you know of a source which proves otherwise please say so. 
I have also raised this issue at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Disputed_Fact_Regarding_Official_Status
9carney (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed fact concerning mention of official WMF position