Template talk:Not-PD-US-URAA

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

I'm also not sure it is a good idea... but anyways, the template now mentions the things we have been discussing about. / Fred Chess 16:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I am however curious about how much liability that can be sought of a non-commercial image provider for hosting an image which only incidentally happens to be copyrighted in that country, an image that would be fine to host in any other country and thus be available just as easy by the internet. Fred Chess 16:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fred, I don't think it's about liability. It's abount honesty. We should not claim something was PD in the U.S. when it isn't. The Liability issue is something the foundation has to sort out. It's their call to tell us whether we may host such images or not. Lupo 07:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Further comment: please note that the template
  1. was proposed tongue-in-cheek, and
  2. was intended to take two parameters.
In its current form (with "France" and "1996" hardcoded), it doesn't make much sense. I have, for the time being, modified it to some other static text. (I'm not well versed in the template syntax for parameters with default values.) Lupo 07:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Test template

Copyrighted in the U.S. This work is not in the public domain in the United States because its copyright in the U.S. was restored by the URAA as it was still copyrighted in its source country (Sweden) on the URAA date (1997). It is copyrighted in the U.S. until 95 years after the year it was initially published. (Or until at least 2047, if it was first published between 1978 and 2002, inclusive).

This is not a valid license on Commons; a valid license template must accompany this tag or this image will be deleted. Even when this tag is accompanied by a valid license template, we are currently trying to figure out what to do with files like this one. If you are the copyright holder of this image, and do not wish to have it hosted on Commons, please contact our designated agent or nominate the image for deletion, explaining the situation.

This is how it would look currently, with the parameters "Sweden" and "1997".

Fred Chess 10:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pasted from my talk page

See m:User talk:Anthere#commons:Commons_talk:Licensing#Pros_and_Cons. The "non-response" mentioned there is here. I'm posting this here instead of at the VP because I want to avoid that the whole discussion migrates now to her talk page there, flooding her with tons of messages. Whatever the outcome, I think we should tag such images that are not PD in the U.S. (Required anyway if we'll be allowed to keep them, and if not, we'll already have done part of the job and can easily identify affected images.) Lupo 19:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. So you think we should use the template template:Not-PD-US-URAA? / Fred Chess 23:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Something like that. I don't particularly like this tag: we'd end up with images tagged with {{PD-Old}} (which says that the work is PD in the U.S.) followed by {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} (contradicting this statement). Maybe a new PD-Old-Non-US tag that says that the work is PD in 70 years p.m.a. countries, but still copyrighted in the U.S. due to the URAA restorations, and replacing PD-Old on the images affected by this new tag (instead of adding Not-PD-US-URAA) would be a better way of doing things because the resulting image description page would not have that contradiction. (Feel free to copy this thread to Template talk:Not-PD-US-URAA.) Lupo 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Going live

Per Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_9#Now_we_have_to_tag_all_post-1922_content_of_creators_who_died_after_1925, I'm going live with this template. It adds images to Category:Works copyrighted in the U.S. Lupo 09:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legality

I don't see how images with this tag are possibly legal. Commons has to comply with U.S. copyright law. Please see Commons_talk:Licensing#Source_country_and_U.S.. Superm401 - Talk 19:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In order to fully enforce the Foundation's Licensing Policy, local Wikis that now disable local uploading have to reopen local uploading to claim American fair use for images that are PD in most countries. Otherwise, if any images are PD in 70 pma countries and sourced in any of them but copyrighted in the USA, I consider that the Foundation should allow Commons to claim limited fair use in cooperation with local Wikis in the following scenario:
  1. There should be no gallery display on Commons, whether in articles or categories, which would not be fair enough in the USA without violating GFDL.
  2. Honestly admit Not-PD-US-URAA and indicate the copyright status in the source countries and 70 pma countries. Only a few countries copyright for life plus more than 70 years.
  3. Use them in relevant pages on local Wikis only.
  4. Indicate which pages use them.
  5. Explain why such uses contend to be fair in the USA without violating GFDL.--Jusjih 00:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair use is explicitly banned on Commons, and I strongly believe this should not be changed. However, this is not the right place to discuss this. Superm401 - Talk 01:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Where is the better place to discuss this? In order to keep the total ban here local uploading may have to be turned back on. I need a better place to talk or I will withhold all donations to Wiki.--Jusjih 01:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
When the Foundation licensing policy was passed in March 2007, it did not address the problem right here very well. Meta page Non-free_content shows which local Wikis disallow local uploading. As the Foundation site requires approval to log in and to edit, I am looking for a Meta page to discuss this and any referral as which page will be appreciated. Pending that, I have to withhold all donations to Wikimedia for its insufficient attention that leaves us a major uncertainty. I am also asking if Wikilivres, hosted in Canada, will take Not-PD-US-URAA images there provided they are PD in Canada, so in case we have to reluctantly delete these images here, we can still see most of them there.--Jusjih 02:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC) (also registered at Wikilivres with the same username)
Commons is not just the place where Wikimedia puts its common content. It's specifically designed to be a repository for free media. Non-free media should be hosted on the individual wikis (this may mean reenabling uploading), or on a separate non-free repository which would need to be created. Superm401 - Talk 18:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, Commons talk:Licensing is an appropriate place for this kind of discussion. Superm401 - Talk 18:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] not permitted on commons

{{editprotected}} Please add the words "This is not a valid license on Commons! A valid license template must accompany this tag or this image will be deleted!" or something to that effect. -Nard the Bard 02:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Are we sure that's the case? The template currently says we don't know if that's the case, and the discussion above doesn't seem determinant... I'd be reluctant to change that wording until we have a consensus on that issue.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I think what Nard the Bard meant is that we cannot have images bearing only this tag. There must be a tag stating why the picture is PD in the country of origin. Then, we attach this tag to indicate that it is not PD in the US (and only then, there is no consensus what we should do). --Botev (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, that's it. I say this because I have seen images tagged with only this, or this and some other non-applicable template (GFDL). But I think maybe I meant PD-URAA instead of this one. -Nard the Bard 00:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Does that look OK?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I think so, thanks. --Botev (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We need a non-USA media repository

When more and more Wikisource language subdomains have become aware of works considered Not-PD-US-URAA, Wikilivres hosted in Canada is the alternate website of six Wikisource language subdomains. Since 2008-11-04, Commons images may now be displayed at Canadian Wikilivres without duplicate uploading. Likewise, I would like to get more attention to prepare opening a media repository outside the USA so we can move affected media out of here without simply deleting them into non-public areas where they will be likely forgotten. Please see also wikilivres:Wikilivres:Community_Portal-en#Accept_Not-PD-US-URAA_images_here? for a discussion.--Jusjih (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically, there is no problem to host files on Wikilivres. The server can increase its workload by at least 3/4 times. The network limit is very far away. Yann (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Court rules that URAA is unconstitutional

See this blog entry by Klaus Graf and its links. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • This ruling only applies to the 10th circuit at the moment, and I'm sure SCOTUS will review it. Or, if they do not, we may have to wait another decade or so for another case in a different circuit to reach the SCOTUS. As it stands it's a bit early to begin changing our policies. -Nard the Bard 16:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
See rather this link: [1]. Yann (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed it is too early to change our policies. See e.g. Tyler Ochoa on Golan v. Holder for a more balanced analysis of the consequences of this decision. A few points:
    • This is a district court ruling in the 10th circuit. It's unlikely to be the end of the story.
    • It doesn't apply outside of the 10th circuit.
    • The U.S. are highly unlikely to refuse to implement responsibilities arising from their adherence to the Berne Convention (BC), and they're even more unlikely to retract from the BC.
    • Even the plaintiffs in this case admit that the BC does require some kind of copyright restoration for such works.
    • Golan v. Holder is about the specific case of reliance parties, i.e., parties who had been using works in the PD prior to 1996 and who continue to do so, relying on the work's (then) PD status. It is not, prima facie, about new uses of such restored works.
    • Even if this ruling should be upheld on appeal, Congress will have to modify 17 USC to still restore copyrights, but with broader protections of reliance parties.
  • Ochoa points out these subtleties quite well. It will be interesting to see what happens next and how this issue will be resolved ultimately. For the time being, tagging potentially affected images with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} is still the right thing to do, IMO. Lupo 09:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree on several points, and agree on another:
  1. There is no reason why it would not apply in the whole USA, unless another ruling exists in another circuit, which it doesn't. Copyright is a federal issue, not a state issue.
  2. The article you mention says: "The ruling demonstrates that Congress cannot restore copyrights willy-nilly; instead, it needs a substantial justification for doing so. That portion of the ruling is likely to survive appeal, making it less likely that Congress will attempt to revive long-dormant domestic copyrights, and more likely that Congress will limit any future restoration efforts to the minimum required by the Berne Convention."
  3. You are right that there will be further development on this issue. However this ruling stands until then, and these developments could take years, and we should not preclude the possibility that this ruling would be held on appeal. Yann (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Seeing your arguments, I would like to say that:
  1. Yann is right that US copyright is a federal issue, but based on w:List_of_copyright_case_law#United_States, "Supreme Court rulings are binding precedent across the United States; Circuit Court rulings are binding within a certain portion of it (the circuit in question); District Court rulings are not binding precedent, but may still be referred to by other courts."
  2. Twin Books v. Walt Disney Co. by the 9th Circuit Court in 1996 considered certain non-US works in other than English "unpublished",[2] but without appeals known, even the US Copyright Office outside its jurisdiction ignores it.
  3. The latest news about Golan v. Holder, once Golan v. Gonzales, is the violation of the US First Amendment by URAA by District Chief Judge Lewis T. Babcock of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in April 2009, after the Tenth Circuit remanded the case to him. Is there any appeal filed yet? When must an appeal be filed after Judge Babcock's ruling?
  4. If Judge Babcock's ruling becomes final in any way, I consider amending the US Constitution the only viable way to restore lapsed non-US copyright while also overriding the First Amendment. Similarly, when the US Congress tried to ban flag desecration, the Supreme Court killed the law twice by 5-4 decision, so some Congress members want to amend the Constitution. However, amending the US Constitution is very hard, requiring supports by at least 290 of 435 House members (2/3), 67 of 100 Senators (2/3), and 38 of 50 states (3/4) through their legislative bodies.
After all, we should decide which way to go regarding these Not-PD-US-URAA files. If taking Judge Babcock's ruling is too early now, I would like to propose better technical cooperation between Commons and Canadian Wikilivres:. As Canadian Wikilivres allows directly displaying Commons files, subject to Canadian Copyright Act, and some Wikimedia wikis reply on files right here while disabling local uploading, I would like to suggest allowing directly displaying Canadian Wikilivres files subject to some general policies to be proposed:
  1. Wikimedia wikis will explain the fair-use rationales in relevant articles while considering any countries where the project content is predominantly accessed, but not duplicate Wikilivres files. Once files have expired copyright at home, explaining the fair-use rationales in the USA should be very easy.
  2. As Wikilivres:Wikilivres:Copyrights accepts copyrighted works with the author's authorization, any kind, including non-commercial and non-derivative licenses, I would like to suggest moving non-commercial and non-derivative works seen here to Wikilivres as well, but displaying them on Wikimedia wikis should be restricted to having very good fair-use rationales subject to local policies. Wikilivres:Image:Sea Green Singers Internationale Levellers Day Burford 20080517.ogg is an example of file transfer from Commons to Wikilivres when the sung lyric has commercial use restricted as incompatible with GFDL.
  3. Bots should be developed to detect Wikilivres files displayed on Wikimedia wikis for copyright enforcement.
  4. Wikimedia wikis will detect a file name for any local file first. If none, then Commons. If still none, then Wikilivres last.
I hope that we think of how to deal with so many Not-PD-US-URAA. An easy file transfer tool like http://toolserver.org/~magnus/commonshelper.php will be vital.--Jusjih (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Not-PD-US-URAA"