Talk:Public domain/Archive 1

message: In one section of the current version, it says that Germany gave up the trademark for such as "heroin" and "aspirin" at the end of World War I. Another section says that "aspirin" lost its trademark because it became a generic term. So, they cannot both be true. Which one is it? RayKiddy 01:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question in re "aspirin" 

message: Rationale for the complete rewrite:
"The copyright or patent on the work has expired."
The actual formula is max(1923, year of first publication + 96) in the U.S. and year of death + 71 in the E.U.
#List items
I converted these to paragraphs because added detail made them too long for the purposes that * was designed to handle.
"The author or inventor explicitly disclaims any proprietary interest."
Not necessarily.
Some law experts believe that it's impossible for an author to put a copyrightable work into PD.
(Anyone have a source for this?)
Even then, it's still a really Bad Idea for an author to release a work into PD, as it fails to disclaim implied warranty and opens the author up to liability.
Better to release it under a simple permissive license similar to the new BSD license.
--Damian Yerrick
: I've added a note to the relevant section that modern copyright law generally doesn't provide any way to abandon copyright.  I think references to this idea are based on the old US law.  As for warranty, I don't see that it would make much difference: you could abandon copyright (if it was possible) and also place a disclaimer, which doesn't seem different to providing a permissive licence and placing a disclaimer.  Goatherd 21:27, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite rationale 

message: Can we have an example other than Mark Twain?: one story of his wasn't published in his lifetime, and finally appeared in 2001, so it's still in copyright.  --Vicki Rosenzweig
:Let's get Lessig on that one too.  ^_^  J.D. Salinger set precedent that even letters are copyrighted, just by virtue of being written; he successfully prevented a biographer's publication of his letters by claiming copyright on them.  Therefore it's established that the act of writing establishes copyright, not the act of publishing.  the much miffed, Koyaanis Qatsi
:: That depends on when the writing occurred.  The current USA model is that writing creates a copyright, but in the not-too-distant past it was the actual filing, which was typically done by a publisher.  RossPatterson 21:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example other than Mark Twain 

message: What about Translation and Editing of old texts?  Translations are obviously under copyright (for whatever time) and edited versions of texts (including Shakespeare, for instance) are copyright.  For instance, a nasty old Shakespeare text from 1900 may be public domain, but the Riverside Shakespeare publishes an original editing, so you can't copy that one, presumably. --MichaelTinkler
The act of publishing the text establishes a copywrite on the material.  This is frequently done by taking a publication that is not copywrited and printing it in a book.  If I remember correctly, the publishing of the title of the book with the printing date is enough.  Usually these editions will have a couple of word changes or mis-spellings somewhere within the text so that it becomes a unique version and they can tell when someone copies their version.  The original version is still in public domain.  However, how many people can get their hands on books 100 years or older?
Ps, I don't know of any prosecution were the word changes were used to prosecute.
: No, the publishing of the text does not establish a copyright on the material. Corel v. Bainbridge and other cases make it very clear that there needs to be creative input, not just a copying of public domain material. The editing of the material--the choosing of modern spellings and sometimes modern words, the choosing of which reading to adopt--those are creative acts and can create a new copyright.
: As for who can get their hands on books printed before 1923 (the line in the US), it strikes me as relatively easy, especially for something like Shakespeare. My city library has a decent collection of such books in the stacks, and Oklahoma State University has a huge collection of such books in the stacks. I suspect any library in a place more than 100 years old should have an ever better collection.--Prosfilaes 21:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation and editing of old texts 

message: In the "1.3 Disclaimer of interest" section, I'd like to add something about the impossibility of "recall" after something has entered the p.d., but I'm not completely sure it's true. For example, a single Supreme Court decision in favour of M. Mouse entering the public domain is permanent, meaning that it cannot ever again become anyone's property; decisions going the other way can be regarded as temporary. Perhaps this aspect - if completely true - is important enough to warrant its own section, here, in Eldred v. Ashcroft, GPL, etc. -- Hotlorp
: Impossibility of "recall" isn't true I think.  Didn't Eldred v. Ashcroft involve public domain works that had reverted to copyright due to the extention of copyright term?  Goatherd 21:29, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossibility of recall 

message: I came to this page hoping to find an explicit statement correcting a common misconception that public domain means anything that's freely available in the public — i.e., posted on the Internet. While the existing text is useful and necessary as an encyclopedia entry, I would like to see a concise statement in this article that makes it clear that this is not true, in order to educate ordinary people with Internet-time attention spans. Any suggestions on how to do this within the existing text? -- Jeff Q 04:30, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a common misconception??  The internet was not widely known to the lay public until the early '90s!  Obviously people talked about the public domain, by that name, before that time.  What did people laboring under that misconception think it meant then? Michael Hardy 23:28, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: While it may not have been a common misconception in the early 90s, it certainly is a common misconception, at least among internet users, today.  To Jeff, I'd suggest that if you can come up with a concise statement you be bold and add it.   anthony (see warning) 01:45, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know it's a common misconception? Is it found other than among the very young; i.e., are there people who never heard of the phrase public domain until they heard it used in connection with this novelty, the internet?  Or have they been lulled into forgetting how they used the term before that?  Michael Hardy 20:50, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I've added a rather lengthy section on Public domain and the Internet. It says all I wanted to say, but not very concisely. Everyone, feel free to tweak, adjust, or downright edit the heck out of it. ☺ I also added a footnote for a rather pithy quote from Nicholas Petreley that has some relevance, but I haven't figured out how to create a Wiki-proper internal footnote link. (My attempt to use the HTML method didn't work.) -- Jeff Q 19:18, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public domain and the Internet 

message: How can I best release all my contributions to Wikipedia from any kind of copyright control or licensing restrictions? As I understand it, articles that I've started can be released into the public domain, even though subsequent versions after editing on Wikipedia will be (presumably) licensed under the GFDL. What about individual edits to GFDL articles — can the edit itself be released into the public domain, even though the resultant article is GFDL? Also, I've heard rumours that the idea of the public domain doesn't exist in Japan — is this true? (Public domain doesn't mention it). If this is the case, what can I do to make sure that my contributions are available for use with as few a restrictions as possible in Japan? — Matt 10:17, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You definitely can commit your individual edits to the public domain, and other Wikipedians have done this (see User:Eloquence for example).  To commit to the public domain, I believe all you have to do is make an "overt act of relinquishment".  Putting a notice on your user page would most likely qualify, at least for works which were already created in the past. http://creativecommons.org/license/publicdomain-2 provides a somewhat more formal way to do this.  I've never used it so I can't really tell you what to expect.  You may also want to look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Guide_to_the_CC_dual-license and/or talk to some of the users in that last category (public domain). anthony (see warning) 12:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the links! — Matt 18:29, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Bullshit.  "It is well settled that rights gained under the Copyright Act may be abandoned. But abandonment of a right must be manifested by some overt act indicating an intention to abandon that right. See Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100, 104 (9th Cir. 1960). " -- Micro-Star v. Formgen Inc., 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998). --71.235.102.239 06:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributions into the public domain 

message: It would be nice if this article could explicitly address the issue of digital texts. A great deal of money may be invested by a company to create a digital edition (mostly digital texts, but also digital images) of old public domain manuscripts and books. Can such an investor then go ahead and prevent his electronic digital edition from being copied by means of a copyright? If he can, then where is his creative addition to the text itself? But if he cannot, then where is his financial incentive to further develope his digital library (especially if we are speaking of a non-profit organization that sells its product for a fee only to cover the costs of developing it)? If anyone could expand on this issue I would be grateful. 80.178.202.154 13:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  digital texts 

message: :'The copyright status of Lovecraft's work is debatable, as no copyright renewals, which were necessary under the laws of that time, have been found. Also, two competing parties have independently claimed copyright ownership on his work''
I'd be interested to know more about the above statement. Are some of Lovecraft's works PD? I notice Wikisource contains, for example, the texts of The Call of Cthulhu. Which competing parties claim copyright? --Axon 14:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lovecraft 

message: There's a difference between releasing your work into the public domain, and releasing it with the  tag.  I came here trying to learn what that difference is, but the article doesn't address it.  Perhaps someone who knows could add that info to the article?  dbenbenn | talk 21:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is one of ownership. A work in the public domain has no legal owner, just an author, while one free for any use has an owner who retains no rights. I could see adding something like this, but I'm not sure where. Deco 01:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any practical result of this difference?  It sounds like a purely philosophical distinction.  dbenbenn | talk 14:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've since discovered, as this article notes, that a work cannot be legally released into the public domain by its author. This means that really  is your only choice to achieve what you want. Deco 03:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PD versus "free to use for any purpose"? 

message: Software is a slightly special case because of the distinction between its exectuable files and the source code that describe how it was written. The executable files of a piece of software might be public domain, but this does not mean that the source code of the software is available or is available in the public domain. I'm not sure if this comment belongs in the article but I thought I'd log it here in case anyone else wants to add it.--Malcohol 13:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Domain and Software 

message: About the public domain, I have an old hitchcock film (original The Man Who Knew Too Much from 1930's) which is in the public domain.  If I were to rip this film from the DVD I purchased to share online, would that be OK in the eyes of the law? --Mrmiscellanious 19:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a lawyer; don't ask here for legal advice.  Having said that--  You first need to verify that it actually is public domain.  There is almost no possibility that it is in the U.S.  It isn't old enough to be completely free of expiration questions (before 1923).  The major movie companies by and large made sure they did their renewals on time.  Even if the original were public domain, you don't have a 1930s copy.  Any minimally-creative addition on the DVD (things like commentaries, menus, etc.) would be copyrighted recently.  There is no short simple answer to your question other than "no".  For a longer answer, read Stephen Fishman's "Public Domain" book . --Amillar 20:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, the movie itself is in the public domain, to the best of my knowledge. Many movies fell into the public domain. Commentaries and menus may be copyrighted, but that doesn't affect the movie. The more complex question is whether the transition from film to DVD is copyrightable; a good compression may well be creative, as might remastering.--Prosfilaes 01:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PD question 

message: If you want to know what's in the pbublic domain and what isn't, check out User:Quadell/copyright. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:10, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
:That's tricky.  The author has to release it in the PD; or the time, which varies, expires; or all things from the source are PD, like everything from the US goverment is PD. --michael180 22:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
:Also, at least some US government lawyers believe that the US government releases works into the public domain only for US citizens.  When it conveys a work to a non-US citizen, that work is still copyrighted.  The  NASA Open Source License explicitly acknowledges this state of affairs by noting that the license terms do not apply to US citizens, and they give Open Source terms. --RussNelson 26:07, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've being out of this subject for sometime, and I definetly lack of vocabulary and correct spelling but I wanted to add this thought right now. Maybe we're talking about two different types of Public Domain... One would be "US Public Domain" the other one "Humanity Public Domain". I like to believe US government releases works into both. --Cawas 14:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to tell if it's in the public domain 

message: Is it true that court files in the United States are in the public domain? --84.139.36.162 01:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, no.  Why would they be any different from other copyrightable works, absent some statute to the contrary? So, perhaps a US Attorney's brief would be PD (as a US Govt work), but the defense brief would not.  Similarly, a patent or patent application is copyrightable under US law, as   a creative work of its author, but quaere if there is  some "implied license by legal estoppel". Lupinelawyer 16:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  court files 

message: The article needs to be broadened. All land owned by the Federal Govt obtained through the Louisiana purchase, the addition of various western states in the 19th century etc., was referred to as the Public Domain until disposed of or reserved by the General Land Office. The term is also still used to refer to public lands.
138.88.163.79 01:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See the article Public domain (land), created Aug 7, 2004. Lupinelawyer 15:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Domain includes land 

message: I can't see what exactly what's wrong with the tone of this article. Feel free to motivate that banner, but if no one does, it should be taken down... --83.250.216.22 20:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The tone of this article? 

message: I cut the part about recopyrighting; Feist was unhelpful, and the link was less helpful (and court proceedings are not authorative.) The URAA (which I'm having trouble finding a Wikipedia link to) put a bunch of foreign copyright back under copyright. I corrected the unpublished works; there's no reason why it will be several decades.
The last two paragraphs are also wrong. Books published without copyright until 1978? dropped immediately into the public domain; the five year leeway was only for a short time before Berne kicked in. I don't have the concrete years for this, so I'm not changing this now.
"The contributions to the public domain have been effectively zero for many years now." isn't exactly true; in the years before the last copyright extension, books published in the early 1920s dropped into the public domain, as well as books not renewed in the early 1960s. --Prosfilaes 01:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editings from United States law 

message: Could we have some sources for Public domain#Revocability where no consideration? This has potential applications to Wikipedia (articles being derivative works of licensed-without-consideration submissions) and so is pretty important. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 17:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: There's a fragmentary sentence in the current version which says "It wasn't until 1993 when Republic Pictures relied on the 1990 United States Supreme Court ruling in Stewart v. Abend to enforce its claim of copyright of the film".
Is this supposed to say "It wasn't restored until 1993..."?
And if so, is this true?
And if so, should the preceding sentence "In the United States, Frank Capra's classic film, 'It's a Wonderful Life' (1946) was put into the public domain in 1974" be changed to say something like "...was temporarily put into the public domain"?
Also, doesn't this provide a counterexample to the earlier statement that "Generally, it is held under Feist that Congress does not have the power to re-copyright works that have fallen into the public domain"?
Steve Summit (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It was never in the public domain, technically speaking. "Enforce" its claim of copyright is exactly the right word.--Prosfilaes 21:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is ''It's A Wonderful Life'' recopyrighted? 

message: I'm interested in getting some opinions about this:
Australian and US public domain are not the same, because when Australia extended their copyright terms in 2005, they did not do it retroactively. For example, Steamboat Willie should be public domain in Australia, but not in the US.
Is it then possible for someone in Australia to "release" works into the US under a "free distribution" type of license? If someone in Australia modified Steamboat Willie, that would then be a new work and whoever modified it would own the copyright to the new work. Would they then be able to release the new work to the US?
Thanks, to anyone who is interested enough to respond! - James Foster 13:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The original work, and any derivatives of that work, would still be copyrighted under US law, and importation would be illegal without permission of that copyright holder. Also note that the US didn't extend their copyright terms retroactively; for stuff published before 1978, it's a flat 95 years of copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes 00:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Depends. I think it may be in Australia, but in the US, where X is 75, it's 20 + X.--Prosfilaes 00:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The effect of public domain being inconsistent internationally