Template talk:PD-US

message: Could an admin please move this template to :Category:Images in the public domain in the United States per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/US_vs_U.S.?  Thanks, Beland 07:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please move

message: Can someone possibly format this template to look more distinctive, perhaps like Template:PD-old?  It doesn't stand out from the text enough as is, IMHO.  I would do it, but the page is protected.  Thanks.  --ChrisRuvolo 19:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fomatting?

message: Does anyone have any objections to a reduction in the size of :Image:PD-icon.png in this template ?  It's sticking out of the box. I think 25px would fit within the box nicely, but I don't know the wikicodes well enough to position it properly. -- PFHLai 08:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of [[:Image:PD-icon.png]]

message: Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:
 vi:Tiêu bản:PD-US
Thanks.
 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 00:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki link to vi:

message: The reason for a U.S. flag is to point out that the copyright is specific to the U.S.. People have a tendency to upload files to Wikimedia Commons or other Wikipedia projects under the assumtion that PD tag means it is PD everywhere. That is definitely not the case. If you don't object, I'll add this flag to some other commonly used PD-US tags. 
I'd also like to add to this template "The work of art is not necessarily Public Domain in other countries.", but I don't want to cludder the template, so please speak if you think this is a bad idea. / Fred-Chess 08:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S. flag

message: Along with the pre-1923-in-the-U.S. rule, why don't we add "or was published outside of the United States before July 1909." This would resolve most of the ambiguities which come up with people regarding things which are old enough to be PD-US but are not necessarily published in the US, but are not old enough to fall under one of the PD-Old tags. --Fastfission 17:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some of the cases from that page. What if we add "See the talk page for more cases where this may apply"? howcheng  {chat} 07:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested addition

message: Please add interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is
 sr:Шаблон:ЈВ-САД
Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 10:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Next time try Template:Editprotected and you'll probably get quicker service :) Haukur 10:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki request

message: Can  be used to simplfy this template and harmonize it with other PD-templates? See  for an example use 68.39.174.238 13:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, but I'm not sure in a quick look-over.  A copyable example would be very helpful; I'm leaving the editprotected tag on in case some other admin is able to do this; feel free to remove in a few days if no-one does it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PD-Layout

message: I have created a newer version on the photos used. Other that the grey copyright mark and the US flag, i have merged them together
(as seen here) this attracts more attention than just the flag and the mark. Cocoaguy  *talk*| (Edits) 23:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea but I see two shortcomings: The "no symbol" is not as visible as before, and that is a very important part of the template.  As-is, the template is easy to adapt to works which are PD under other countries' laws.  A merged symbol would require custom art for each new template, and many countries flags would not adapt well to this type of merge. —Dgiest c 18:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I might also add that that is a GIF and should be an SVG image. 68.39.174.238 20:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems no consensus for this change. I've thus removed the edit request tag for now. --Ligulem 16:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit protect

message: Are these only public domain in the US, or are they public domain everywhere because they were originally published in the US? --Random832 00:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the image was first published in the U.S. (and not elsewhere simultaneously) before 1923, then it's PD everywhere. If the image was first published outside the U.S. before 1923, it's still considered PD in the U.S., but it's considered copyrighted elsewhere. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not necessarily; Germany, Canada and Mexico and several other nations don't have the rule of the shorter term with respect to US works (or in general for some of those nations), and hence just because it was first published in the US prior to 1923 doesn't mean that it's PD everywhere.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: At the top of this talk page, it states several cases where this tag could be applied. These include works first published in the U.S. before 1963 without a copyright notice, etc. But the text of the template itself says that the work was first published before 1923. Are there any objections to me changing the text of this tag to cover all cases mentioned at the top of this page? – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What about post-1923 PD images?

message: Please change
:In most cases, this means that it was first published in the United States prior to January 1, 1923
to
:In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1923.
As noted at the top of this page, works published outside the United States before 1923 are also in the public domain. Commons:Template:PD-US does not include the phrase "in the United States" in the second sentence and neither should this template. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! —Remember the dot (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "in the United States"

message: * Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Template:PD-US and its family for works of non-USA-authors Alex Spade 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: Please replace the contents of this template with:




This image is in the public domain in the United States. In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1923 (see the template documentation for more cases). Other jurisdictions may have other rules, and this image might not be in the public domain outside the United States. See Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details.




This will bring the template into conformance with WP:DOC and move the template documentation off the talk page. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Haukur 22:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! —Remember the dot (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Switch to [[WP:DOC]] format

message: I've made a protected verbatim copy of this template at  for us lazy types unable to reach the shift key.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy at [[:Template:Pd-us]]

message: Replace the source code with:




This image is in the public domain in the United States. In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1923 (see the template documentation for more cases). Other jurisdictions may have other rules, and this image might not be in the public domain outside the United States. See Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details.




which produces the template below; the American flag is positioned to the right and is more visually appealing -- penubag  (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: . עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: I really wish all the image licence tags could conform to a single style, ideally a new colour of .  could be copied to a new name (e.g.  (image message box) and given a new colour. In my opinion, the image pages all look so cluttered and jumbled and it's really hard to gauge just from looking where all the information is. Trouble is - it might be being too bold - everyone is affected. It would make such a difference in my opinion though. What are all your thoughts? Drum guy (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: is in work as we speak, but it's intended for maintenance tags, not license tags. Personally I'd like to standardize en Wikipedia license tags with Commons license tag as much as possible. Kelly hi! 02:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Using {{tl|ambox}}

message: How does one know where a work was published?  I would like to upload photographs I am certain were created before 1923, since the subject died before then, but I have no idea when the image was first published.  Any advice? Thanks. —johndburger 02:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to find out the exact source of the photos. Were they published in a newspaper? Who was the photographer, and have they also died? —Remember the dot (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, so basically most "old" photos found on the net are useless to us—too bad.  I suspect this due diligence has not, in fact, been done for many of the images tagged with this template, since the few that I randomly looked at make no mention of the author or original publication. Or am I being too cynical? —johndburger 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What does ''published'' mean?

message: Wouldn't it be better if  was just a redirect rather than a copy of the PD-US template?
#REDIRECT Template:PD-US
-- WOSlinker (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because it has a high number of transclusions, and the redirect will show up on the transclusion. It's better to keep it as it is. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Change pd-us tempate to a redirect to PD-US

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) 20:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistagged PD-Old and PD-US images

message: I'd like to have a definite answer to this crucial question, which emerged as a side issue to the discussion on the definition of "published". (see the discussion two sections previous to this one). Here's the relevant discussion, you can see more above:
*Johnbod:...if only copies are published - eg a photo in a book - only that copy/photo will be PD, not the original. I think. A lawyer should confirm.
*Me:...if the reproductions do not have sufficient originality to be copyrighted, then their PD status is inextricable from that of the artwork.
*Johnbod:...If it were true there would be effectively no copyright at all for 2-d works in the US, no?
*Me:...That was not at all my meaning; I simply followed this logic: if "A: If a printed reproduction of a 2d work of art was published in the US before 1923, that reproduction is in the public domain within the US." and "B: A reproduction of a 2d work of art does not have sufficient originality to be copyrighted." are true, then "C: Any reproduction of a 2d work of art that was reproduced before 1923 in the US will have the same copyright status as the reproduction that was produced before 1923" would seem to follow. If the reproduction does not have sufficient originality to be copyrighted in the first place, then its publication in the US before 1923 would not release merely the reproduction into the public domain in the US- you cannot take away from it what it never had, ie the protection of copyright. Therefore it is the work of art itself that passes into the public domain.(as an addendum: How can you publish an original work of art anyway, without copying it? It is impossible. If we apply Johnbod's logic to PD worldwide, then only reproductions made more than 70 years ago could be used to represent PD works, which would be contra WP policy that follows Bridgeman. I see no reason why our treatment of PDUS should not be analogous) Thanks, Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Which is PDUS, the entire work (ie any reproduction of it), or only the reproduction that was published before 1923?

message: Please unlink United States, which is a well-known term, per WP:OVERLINK#What generally should not be linked in the MoS. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlink request 

message: It would seem helpful to add a line, if not a template, for previously unpublished work. Cornell says unpublished work enters the public domain 70 years after the death of the author (photographer too?) and anonymous work 120 years after the work was created. This covers a huge volume of family and archived photos, diaries, etc. Wikipedians can find this rule by clicking through to the "complete list" reference at Cornell, but it would be clearer to note the dichotomy between published and unpublished in the main text. 
The line or template might note that at least in the US, previously unpublished work (a) enters the public domain because of the "unpublished" rules, and (b) stays in the public domain even if it is now published, because works published in the US after 2002 enter the public domain "70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first." (same Cornell reference). Numbersinstitute (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unpublished 

message: Is there an opposite of this template?
In other words, do we have a template that indicates a work is free in the country of origin but not the United States? Ixfd64 (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it depends on the reason, if it's due to URAA restoration, then you can use  or something like  accompanied with the appropriate non-free use tag like . Dylsss(talk contribs) 22:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm thinking about situations where the country of origin has a higher threshold of originality than the United States. Something like the opposite of  but for foreign countries. It seems we don't have a  template for each country or the ability to specify that the work is in public domain because it's too simple to be copyrighted. Or do we just stick to fair-use templates in these cases? Ixfd64 (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean there's :Category:Public domain copyright templates by country, but I don't think you can specify that it's because of ToO. That said, the situation that there would be something that is original enough in the US but not in the source country seems very rare as the US threshold is already quite high; the source country's threshold would have to be even higher, so that it would be below its threshold but above the US threshold. AFAIK there isn't any country which has a threshold of originality that is significantly higher than in the US apart from Brazil (c:com:TOO Brazil). Dylsss(talk contribs) 01:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  template for indicating that a work is free in its source country but not the United States?