Template talk:PD-Pre1978

message: It's import that the image was first published without a copyright notice. If it was published without a copyright notice, but it had been previously published with a copyright notice (before 1978), then it's copyrighted (assuming the copyright-holder subsequently applied for an extension, which is very difficult to disprove.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A note

message: The current language of this template is too broad, since works that were first published outside the US can still be in copyright even if they did not carry a copyright notice.  Could it be changed to:
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published in the United States prior to 1978, and without copyright notice.  This causes the work to irrevocably fall into the public domain.
—Celithemis 00:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. Good point. I've changed it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 15:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change needed 

message: Shouldn't this tag be populating a category? Carcharoth 21:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category? 

message: This template talks about works published before 1978. The referenced Copyright article talks about 1989 and 1976. Where did the 1978 year come from? Should the information in this template be reflected in that article? --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1978 and Copyright article 

message: Please add an interwiki link to the Serbian version of this template. -- Bojan  11:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbian Wiki 

message: I am very skeptical of the claim made by this template.  As mentioned above, the Copyright article does not address the supposed 1978 date at all.  Moreover, according to United States copyright law:
:Prior to 1978, works had to be published or registered to receive copyright protection. Upon the effective date of the 1976 Act (January 1, 1978) this requirement was removed and these works received protection despite having not been published or registered.
Can anyone provide convincing and concrete documentation of this 1978 date and what it means?  If not, the template should be deleted. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that wording in United States copyright law is confusing - it conflates unpublished works with published-but-unregistered-works. It's the latter this template deals with, see the Hirtle chart. Haukur (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I also found that on commons:Template:PD-US-no notice.  I see that apparently it is a legitimate loophole in copyright law, but I think it still needs to be cleared up how this applies to physical works of art like paintings and sculpture.  It seems that whether a painting can qualify for , it depends on what it means for a painting to be "published," and I haven't found a clear definition for that.  Does it include a first sale?  Does it require sale at a public auction?  Or does merely creating the work count? etc. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, statues and paintings are tricky. Basically, for publication to take place, a reproduction needs to be made available. So if you sell postcards with photographs of your painting then your painting is published. If you sell casts of your statue then your statue is published. Merely selling the painting, even in a public auction, doesn't count - but if there's a printed auction catalog with a reproduction of your painting then that ought to do the trick. Haukur (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need more information 

message: The template currently reads: "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published in the United States without copyright notice prior to 1978, which causes the work to be irrevocably in the Public Domain."  The P and the D in the last instance of public domain should be lowercase letters. The "public domain" isn't a proper noun. Esrever (klaT) 20:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's also sort of awkwardly worded. "It's in the public domain because of something, which means it's in the public domain." It's basically X because of Y, which is X. Perhaps something like, "This work was first published in the United States before 1978 without copyright notice, which places it irrevocably in the public domain in the United States." Esrever (klaT) 02:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: , though i chose a different wording, because i think it is important to state the "license status" of the work as early in the sentence as possible. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. Thanks! Esrever (klaT) 12:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: capitalization fix

message: The  template is missing from the main template.



Needs to be changed to

 


Which will add the documentation page  designed to go with the template.
Thank you,  Mlpearc powwow 02:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The page Template:PD-Pre1978/doc currently redirects to Template:PD-US/doc, which does not correctly document the use of this template. Please fix that first. Anomie⚔ 02:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary template needed 

message: This seems kind of like a less-useful version of , which is also the [name of] the template they use for this on commons. Perhaps this should be merged into that? —SamB (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I filed a proposal to merge the two templates. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 15:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace with {{tl|PD-US-no notice}}?