Template talk:PD-Art

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

[edit] 70 years

The period of "70 years after author's death" for the "two-dimensional work of art" seems to be valid worldwide. As to the PD status of the repdoruction/photograph/scan of that work, the template only mentioned US law. Mentioning only the US is misleading. It's like that in Germany, also, so I added that country. Since international copyright law is tricky, I think we could either:

add more countries to the template, in case we are sure the PD status applies there
state "public domain worldwide but in" and add countries where there is no agreement that such reproductions are also public domain (I'm not sure if those exist).

Any suggestions? --AndreasPraefcke 23:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At least Mexico has copyright lasts 100 years after the authors death. I changed Germany to EU, should be all 70 years. -guety 23:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think its a big mistake to make changes in the template without checking if it is correct for all the images where it is used. Sweden has similar laws as other EU countries and photographs, regardless of object, is protected for 50 years after publication. Yes, that includes photos of paintings from the 17th and 18th century. I have uploaded photos that are not public domain by Swedish law but public domain by US law. Hence, it is highly misleading to include more countries than United States in the template. Thuresson 22:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co.(24)

Possibly, the above Supreme Court ruling should also be mentioned - it ruled out "sweat of brow" as a basis of copyright. From [1]: The Supreme Court sounded the death knell for the sweat of the brow doctrine in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co.(24) In finding a white pages telephone directory to be uncopyrightable, the Court held that the sole basis for protection under U.S. copyright law is creative originality. Although this is not about images, it makes clear the creativity is the sole basis for copyright. See also en:Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 17:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Gallery claims copyright on photos of paintings- Ignore them?

See http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/home/terms.htm

The national gallery says they have copyright on photographs of paintings- including those paintings 500 years old.

Should I ignore such warnings and copy paintings into Commons anyway (That is, really old paintings- like 100 or more years old)?

Under UK law, the NG's photographic reproductions of out-of-copyright old pictures will be entitled to their own copyright provided that sufficient "skill and labour" went into the making of their reproductions to allow them to qualify as a new copyright works. Ultimately, that's a matter for the courts, but the skill and labour involved in taking a high-quality record photograph of the type listed on the website is certainly enough to qualify. The required level of effort is quite low. So, you should not ignore the copyright notice. On the other hand, it's only the National Gallery's own photographs that they can protect by copyright. If a photographer takes an independent photograph of an old master, any copyright in that photograph will reside with the photographer and could be released under a free licence in the normal way. --MichaelMaggs 13:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Related question- The PD-Art Text says: "This applies to reproductions created in the United States (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.), in Germany, and in many other countries. " Do we have a list of countries for which it does not apply? Is the UK one?

-Mak 02:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly why Bridgeman Art Libray v. Corel Corp is important: because it says that a work of art can only be copyrighted if it's original, and in this case reproductions of PD paintings are not. There is however, something as 'database rights', so you can't copy the complete National Gallery website on Commons because they have rights on the way the collection is assembled. Also, be careful not to upload any reproductions of threedimensional works of arts (e.g. sculpture) because those reproductions are copyrighted. Husky 09:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a cool case, yes. My question had to do with how broadly I may use it. If I extrapolate from the PD Art notice correctly, then Bridgeman v. Corel only covers reproductions made in the US. That implies we can't just slap PD-Art on anything that looks like a painting made over 100 years ago. It implies we need to verify that the repro was made in the US or Germany and document that fact. I am inclined to go with what Dues said and apply the precedent broadly. There is no sweat of brow in making these reproductions. Just for fun take an expensively produced art book to a museum and compare their repros to the original. If you studied art from such reproductions you will wonder if you really know anything at all about how prior artists used color. The reproductions are really quite awful. Most of the electronic ones I have seen on the net don't even bother with color correction.

I was just wondering though if the Bridgeman case was quite specific about where the reproduction was made, and whether it is recommended practice to apply the text rigidly or liberally as I am inclined to do...

As for sculptures- I have taken prolific photos and videos of statues every museum I went to in Europe while I was living there. One of these days I will be uploading them, but I have only spot uploaded some where there was requests for specific statues (gallery of some of them). -Mak 16:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright of originals vs. images

Some points as I (a non-lawyer) understand them. Please feel free to correct me if you actually know more about the law (and are not simply speculating) than I do:

If you take a photograph of a piece of public domain art, then you own the copyright for the photograph as far as I understand. However, it is difficult (see the case referenced above) to defend such copyright.
There's a weak claim to be made by the person who "arranged" the art (e.g. set up an exibit), and that claim gets stronger, the more of their work is visible in the photograph. This is especially key for three-dimensional work.
Because this touches on case (common) law rather than strict interpretation of the letter of the laws and treaties that apply, it seems as if there is room to argue.
Because of the above, Wikipedia would be very wise to at least note the source of every image that it uses. I notice that most of the commons and en art images that show up on the main page of en do not cite the photographer or originating site.

-Harmil 13:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Response: Point one - not if you live in the U.S. There is no copyright for this in the U.S. because there is no originality.

Point two: irrelevant if the photo includes only the painting. Images of three dimensional art does require originality to choose an angle to photograph from so it is copyrightable in the U.S. Rmhermen 19:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification needed

This template is problematic. The original artwork should fall under one of our other PD tags (such as {{PD-old}}), and then this template should state that the reproduction also is PD (in the U.S. because of Bridgeman vs. Corel). As a quick fix, I suggest that:

The "worldwide" claim should probably go.
For non-U.S. works:
1. If the author or the original artwork is known, the image is considered PD only if he died more than 70 years ago.
2. The publication date is only interesting if the original artwork is anonymous: PD only if really an anonymous work and published more than 70 years ago.
For U.S. works:
1. If the work was published, it's PD if published pre-1923 or provably fits {{PD-US-not renewed}}.
2. Unpublished works: PD if author (if known) died more than 70 years ago, or, if the work is anonymous, the artwork was created more than 120 years ago.

(Yes, this is only a first approximation...) Lupo 11:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If this is true, we're in big trouble. Pablo Picasso and Marc Chagall would have to go, the Russian avant-gardists like Natalya Goncharova, Mikhail Larionov, Alexandre Benois and Pavel Filonov as well, to name but a few. Is there really no appropriate license for these major works of art? Errabee 16:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. And yes, we have a problem. Chagall is on my to-do-list to nominate for deletion. The paintings in Category:Pablo Picasso need to go, too, unless we can show that they were first published before 1923 in the U.S. (quite unlikely). Note that creation or even exhibition of a painting is not publication! (See e.g. en:WP:PD#Publication.) The images at the article Pablo Picasso are fine; there are no paintings of his, only a few photos of a sculpture published under freedom of panorama. The first three of the Russian painters you mentioned are already up for deletion. Filonov is fine, though, as he died 1941. As I said, the above is only a first approximation. Basically the depicted work itself must fall under one of our other PD tags, and Filonov is a prime example for {{PD-Russia}}. He died in 1941, and assuming his works were published in his lifetime, they are in the public domain in Russia (pre-1954), in the U.S. (pre-1942), and I think also in the EU (rule of the shorter term, i.e. pre-1954). Lupo 08:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the template states: The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain worldwide due to the date of death of its author, or due to its date of publication. So, the date of the author's death is not the only factor taken into consideration, but also the date of publication. Or do I miss something? Errabee 16:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm after. The wording of this template is highly misleading and should be fixed. The date of publication is only a factor for U.S. works and non-U.S. anonymous works. See also (for the U.S. rules) Peter Hirtle's chart. Lupo 08:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fred, for the pretty good reformulation. That covers at least the common cases. Lupo 12:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As a USian, I'm also confused by the template's implication that post-1923 works are PD in the U.S. if they were published outside the U.S., and the author has been dead for a certain amount of time. As far as I know, that's incorrect under US law. For example, my understanding is that this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Corinth_Ecce_homo.jpg image is still under copyright in the U.S. (if its copyright was renewed in 1953).--24.52.254.62 05:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If it was registered in the U.S. (which seems somewhat unlikely), then yes, it might still be copyrighted there. If it was not registered in the U.S., it is PD in the U.S., too, because it was no longer copyrighted in its country of origin, which appears to be the Netherlands, on January 1, 1996, the date the URAA became effective in the U.S. (The painter died 1925, so the work was copyrighted in the Netherlands until December 31, 1995.) Common practice on the commons is to ignore the possibility of non-U.S. works where the author has died more than 70 years ago being copyrighted in the U.S. all the same. It's not 100% correct, but it's the current consensus here. Lupo 12:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PD-Art in french

Message copied from User talk:Thuresson :

Hi,
I don't understand why did you delete the french translation. 
Have you created a french version to use instead ?
--Fabos 13:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Because we would have to have 10 languages in every template - that would make them totally unusable. Ideally, Templates should be localizable in the same way system messages are - users would then see it in their "interface language". But we don't have that feature. Having separate templates would make things worse - I don't want to have to clean up images that contain license tags in russion, japanese, etc.

I would like to propose a workaround: Templates should be english (which is the "main language" of the commons - it's sad that we need a main language, but we still do). At the bottom, there should then be links to translations - i.e. we would have Template:PD-Art/fr, Template:PD-Art/de, Template:PD-Art/es, etc, and small links to those from Template:PD-Art. That way, people who don't speak english can get a translated text, but the template does not get too big. Also, the naming scheme would allow an easy transition to a true multilingual template system, if we should get that at some point.

I'll move the franch translation to Template:PD-Art/fr and link to it. Please don't use Template:PD-Art/fr directly as a template, though. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 14:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Could we please add the interwiki links?

[[en:PD-Art]], [[mk:Шаблон:Јд-уметност]], [[vi:Tiêu bản:PD-art]], [[th:แม่แบบ:PD-art]] Thanks. Evrik (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

can someone with access fix this grammar please:

"(if it is was published outside of the U.S. and the author has been dead for over 70 years)"

"is was"... Janechii 10:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be nice. ACupOfCoffee 18:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Germany and the Rule of the Shorter Term

The reference to Germany in the current form is misleading: If the work of art was published in the US before 1923, reproductions of it are not at all automatically PD in Germany, due to a bilateral contract. I suggest to re-word the template as follows:

The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain due one of the following reasons:

it was first published outside the U. S. and its author has been dead for over 70 years. This applies in the U. S., the countries of the European Union and many other countries. Therefore, this photographical reproduction is also in the public domain, at least in the United States and in Germany, but also in many other countries.
it was first published in the U. S. and before 1923. This applies in the U. S. and many other states, but not in Canada, China except Macao, Germany, Switzerland and other countries that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works. Therefore, this photographical reproduction is also in the public domain in the United States and in many other countries, but not in Canada, China except Macao, Germany and Switzerland and other countries with individual treaties with the U. S.

To uploader: Please provide necessary copyright information about the artwork itself.

Comments? --Wikipeder 13:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, but lets just wait a few more days, in case someone else wants to comment. / Fred Chess 17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's still wrong. We have the following cases:

Countries where the copyright term for the work expires X years after the author's death. I'll call countries that generally apply this principle the "X years p.m.a." countries. The U.S. is not such a country. In the U.S., this rule applies only to post-1977 works, but that is irrelevant for us, because X = 70 for such works in the U.S. and no author of any post-1977 work can have died more than 70 years ago. (With one little exception concerning unpublished works mentioned below).
- Known author who died more than 70 years ago: the work is PD in all "X years p.m.a." countries where X <= 70. The work is not PD in the U.S., unless one of the U.S. rules below also applies.
- Unknown author, anonymous work, pseudonymous work (author never became known): is PD in "X years p.m.a." countries if it was published more than X years ago, or, if unpublished, was created more than X years ago. Commons accepts such works only if X >= 70.
U.S. rules:
- U.S. works. Any U.S. work that is PD in the U.S. is also PD elsewhere if either the work also satisfies the rules of the other country (see above for "X years p.m.a." countries), or the other country does apply the rule of the shorter term to U.S. works, which, as is rightly pointed out, is not the case in several (many?) countries.
  - Published before 1923: PD in the U.S.
  - Published 1923 - 1977: PD in the U.S. only if {{PD-US-not renewed}} provably applies.
  - Unpublished works:
    - Any: if not published while still copyrighted under the original term, but then published 1978 to 2002 (inclusive): Copyrighted in the U.S. until at least the end of 2047! Even if the author is known and died more than 70 years ago :-(
    - Otherwise, if the author and his death year are known: "70 years p.m.a." applies in the U.S.
    - Otherwise: Author unknown, death year of author unknown, anonymous or pseudonymous work, work for hire: PD in the U.S. if created more than 120 years ago.
- Non-U.S. works:
  - Anything published anywhere before 1909 is PD in the U.S.
  - Non-U.S. works first published outside of the U.S. 1909-1922 without © notice and in a language other than English and still copyrighted in their source country on the URAA date for that country may still be copyrighted in the U.S.: they are treated as "unpublished" works in the U.S.
  - Otherwise, a foreign work is PD in the U.S. if it satisfies the rules for U.S. works.
  - Non-U.S. works are also PD in the U.S. if they were not copyrighted in their source country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries), and were not copyrighted in the U.S. before that date (e.g. by having been published without © notice before 1989 and not registered in the U.S.).

The main point here is that the U.S. does not generally apply "70 years p.m.a." to foreign works! The U.S. applies basically the U.S. rules to foreign works. Therefore, the first point mentioned in the template is wrong. A work may be PD in its non-U.S. source country under the 70 years p.m.a. but still be copyrighted in the U.S. It's a mess, and if we want to adhere to our rule that the work must be PD in its source country and in the U.S., it doesn't exactly get any easier... Lupo 12:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is a mess. What about this:

The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain due one of the following reasons:

it was first published before 1909 and its author has been dead for over 70 years. This applies in the U. S., the countries of the European Union and many other countries. Therefore, this photographical reproduction is also in the public domain, at least in the United States and in Germany, but also in many other countries.
it was first published outside the U. S. and its author died before January 1, 1926 (70 years before the URAA date in its source country). This applies in the U. S., the countries of the European Union and many other countries. Therefore, this photographical reproduction is also in the public domain, at least in the United States and in Germany, but also in many other countries.
it was first published in the U. S. and before 1923. This applies in the U. S. and many other states, but not in Canada, China except Macao, Germany, Switzerland and other countries that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works. Therefore, this photographical reproduction is also in the public domain in the United States and in many other countries, but not in Canada, China except Macao, Germany and Switzerland and other countries with individual treaties with the U. S.

To uploader: Please provide necessary copyright information about the artwork itself.

The template then wouldn't cover the small group of non-US images of authors who died after 1925 but still more than 70 years ago and that fulfill the US rules at the same time, but at least users can rely on what the tag says.

(Cases of PD status exclusive to the US should not be dealt with with this template, I suppose) --Wikipeder 14:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we make two templates: one 'simple' one for all paintings where the author is dead for more than 100 years (which can apply to the great majority of all PD-Art paintings) and this template for the smaller group of pictures that apply to more special conditions (e.g. PD in the USA, but not in Germany) Husky 20:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, Wikipeder's latest version goes against the spirit of template, which is to say that the image in question is PD because it is an exact reproduction of a public domain work. It might even be better to just replace the current template text the text

"This 2D work of art is an exact reproduction of a work that is in the public domain. The reproduction is therefore also in the public domain. This applies to reproductions created in the United States (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.), in Germany, and in many other countries."

Yes, I think it would be a better text.

Fred Chess 21:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point. But how do users get out why the original is supposed to be PD in the first place? Should this tag always be complemented by, e. g. {{PD-old}}?

We should write this down in the template then: "Always give the reason why the original is in the public domain" or something like this. --Wikipeder 22:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, Fred's essentially right. What we'd really need is a template saying that "this image is a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art and thus not copyrightable in itself in the U.S. as per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. In many other countries, including Germany, exact 2D reproductions of 2D originals are also not copyrightable. The original two-dimensional work depicted is in the public domain as per <insert the applicable other PD tag here>. Because the original is in the public domain, so is this image." We could even rephrase this to apply to freely licensed base works (e.g. if the depicted 2D work was under CC-BY)... I'm sure one of our template wizards could rework this template to take an optional parameter (defaulting to PD-old) such that the tag for the base work would be included automatically. Then we'd have a clear separation of statements about the copyright status of the image and of the underlying artwork. Of course, we just have moved the problem of what works are PD (70 years p.m.a. vs. U.S.-rules) to {{PD-Old}}. Lupo 12:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now that I think of it, {{PD-art}} should probably best be transformed into something like {{Reproduction}}. We could then use it to tag any reproductions of 2D originals, not only PD paintings. Where do we find the template wizards? --Wikipeder 14:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fred Chess and Lupo, it offers simple and universal information. How about template like this:

This image is a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art and thus not copyrightable in itself in the U.S. as per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.). In many other countries, including Germany, exact the two-dimensional reproductions of the two-dimensional originals are also not copyrightable. The original two-dimensional work is a free content because:

This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired.

This applies to the United States, Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.

Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years: Mexico has 100 years, Colombia has 80 years, and Guatemala and Samoa have 75 years. This image may not be in the public domain in these countries, which moreover do not implement the rule of the shorter term. Côte d'Ivoire has a general copyright term of 99 years and Honduras has 75 years, but they do implement the rule of the shorter term.

Therefore, this reproduction is also available in the same condition of the original work.

I'm not good at English, its text need to be corrected. See also User:Kareha/PD-Art for more samples. --Kareha 19:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is great! I tweaked the wording a little; it may need more tweaking. Maybe start with the coypright on the original, and then say that the reproduction is subject to the same conditions because of Bridgeman v. Corel. But that's just a detail. I suggest replacing {{PD-Art}} by User:Kareha/PD-Art. Now, what do we do with {{PD-Old}}? It still says that 70 years p.m.a. applied in the U.S. ... Lupo 07:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor revision

I suggest to revise this template by replacing it with User:Kareha/PD-Art again. What I intend are as follows:

Tweaked phrasing after Lupo's suggestion (see above) as I agree with him. This is better way to explain.
Removed Japanese text. They are no need here.
Added information and links to background pages in <noinclude> way.

--Kareha 03:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting out {{PD-Art}}

Anyone interested in helping to sort out the confusing mess that is the PD-Art template should drop over to User talk:Kareha/PD-Art where a discussion about how best to improve this template is just getting started. We're intending to work away from the main page as this is a heavily-used template and repeated modifications to it, as we're going along, would over-stress the server. --MichaelMaggs 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Finished. Template updated. --MichaelMaggs 16:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Now the templates puts the paintings in a (non-existing) category Category:PD-Art (PD-old). Bug or feature? --AndreasPraefcke 08:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bug. Now fixed. --MichaelMaggs 14:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I coded it to categorize {{PD-Art}} by the including license tags. Mostly they are categorized in Category:PD-Art (PD-old), some are in Category:PD-Art (PD-US), Category:PD-Art (PD-ineligible) and so on.--Kareha 19:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. One or two of the categories didn't exist but I've created them now. --MichaelMaggs 19:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quoting Bridgeman

Per discussion with w:User:Mikegodwin, the wording has been changed slightly. -- Avi 16:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you point to the actual discussion, please? I'd be interested in his reasoning. Surely by the way he didn't say that 'American' is better than 'US'? 'American' can include South America :) --MichaelMaggs 18:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Still confusing

I find this template to be problematic because of the apparent contradiction in the 70 year vs. 100 year phrasing under U.S. law. This template's explicit statement that copyright including the U.S. expires "life of the author plus 70 years" is at variance with the PD-Art template at en:Wikipedia, which states that U.S. copyright is "life of the author plus 100 years". Which is it?

For example, I am pondering whether to upload here my photo of an oil painting made in 1890 by Heinrich Hofman (1824–1911). Under the 100-year rule, the painting will not become PD until 2011, i.e., 100 years after the painter's 1911 death, and thus cannot be uploaded at en-Wikipedia using the PD-Art tag. But it may be uploaded here at Commons as PD using this template. This anomoly begs the question, may the painting in this example be uploaded as an out-of-copyright PD artwork, or not? In other words, has copyright expired in U.S. for 2D artworks by artists who died later than 1908 but before 1938? JGHowes 06:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The painting should be PD in the U.S. because it was made well before 1923. Germany uses PD-old-70. The reason en wiki says 100 is not that that's law in the U.S. (it isn't) but because of other countries. Superm401 - Talk 00:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PD-Art-100?

Is there any reason not to create such a template? Image:BurlingtonBayByElizabethSimcoe.jpg for instance, is a scan of a piece of art by a lady dead over 150 years. Should we not include that it's good for places with life +100 for our Mexican friends? Wily D 15:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Use {{PD-art|PD-old-100}}. Superm401 - Talk 00:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing layout

The layout of this template is confusing. The colors and the use of a box draw the eye strongly inside the box, where the wording starts with "This image (or other media file)" as if it was the complete description. I was led to this box by the presence of a featured article whose lead image is being challenged because PD-Art does not apply in the UK, and was quite stumped for a few minutes because I read the text inside the box and it (i.e. that part) does apply in the UK, being an EU country.

I see three possible fixes.

The lazy choice would be to boldface the words "the original image" in the leading text and "this photograph" in the trailing text, but I don't think that would be much of an improvement.
The wording inside the box could be changed to say "the image", or better yet "the original image" or some such words instead of "this image (or other media file)". I presume that the existing wording comes from a separate PD template, but that template could be given a parameter.

(With this correction made, the box could also be removed. Perhaps simple indentation would suffice to make it clear which part of the text the notes about applicability pertain to.)
The order of the contents could be changed to start with what is now the trailing text, about the US rule on photos of PD art, and follow it with the rest, about why the original is PD.
Suggestions 2 and 3 might both be applied. Really I think that would be best.

The same sort of suggestions may also apply to other templates where something is PD by reason of being uncreatively derivative of a PD work. I haven't looked to see if there are others.

--207.176.159.90 00:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PD-Art on Wikipedia

Well, guess what, I managed to get the PD-Art template on the English Wikipedia to be more like ours, with the whole "you can change the licence inside it" thing now. That should help a bit. ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redesign

Is there a way of redesigning this templates so that it still displays a proper license when translated? Currently most of the translations say PD-old whether that is the license specified or not. /Lokal _Profil 22:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] bug fixed in fr subpage

Don't forget to put the <noinclude> warning message...</noinclude> blocks.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:PD-Art/fr&diff=17990192&oldid=12670236

I fixed the fr template, now there might be other template parts to fix. Esby (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

When I change templates to use autotranslate I normally change all language subpages too so they use the layout template. In this case I stopped cause I realized that the translations are _completely_ out of sync with the English default. For foreign languages I cannot judge whether translations are outdated, plain wrong or just the same as the English version put in other words. Therefore I left them as they were. But I didn't think of the translation tag templates.

Actually all of the translations need review whether they are still valid. Do you have any idea how to handle this? --Slomox (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

How about categorizing them as 'needing translation check/review', and remove the category once someone talking the given language has checked the given template? Esby (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the other lang for the no include bug. Some pages were not protected, there was a minor ip vandalism in the arabian template. Esby (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] another potential bug?

I just fixed a bug in PD-Art template redirecting users to PD-old translation. This was located in PD-Art/layout.

Now I see that line in PD-Art

{{PD-Art/{{Fallback|PD-Art}}|1={{{1|}}}}}<includeonly>{{{category|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|File|[[Category:PD-Art ({{{1|PD-old}}})]]}}}}}

What is this 1|PD-old?

Is this a remnant of PD-Old translation?

should it be replaced by PD-Art?

Esby (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood the template. PD-Art is no licence of its own. It's just a wrapper to say "this is a free reproduction of a work that is free cause of {{{1}}}". You have to specify the licence of the original work in the first parameter. If no first parameter is provided, PD-old is the default. So the template is all right. --Slomox (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Three-dimensional images

Someone made a request on PD-Art on the English Wikipedia to add to the template a condition for situations where something is "three-dimensional and the reproduction does nothing more than accurately convey the underlying image." There seems to now be possible legal basis that it could apply in a way to 3D art in the United States. Your thoughts? ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I am going to study the cases cited. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The request was to change the wording of the PD-Art tag on the English Wikipedia as follows:

This image is in the public domain because under United States copyright law, originality of expression is necessary for copyright protection, and a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright ~~two-dimensional~~ work may not be protected under American copyright law, especially if the out-of-copyright work is two-dimensional, but also if it is three-dimensional and the reproduction does nothing more than accurately convey the underlying image.

The cases relied on to support the request were Meshwerks v. Toyota Motor Sales, (10th Cir. 2008); Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 323 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2003); Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel, 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); ATC Distr. Group v. Whatever it Takes, 402 F. 3d 700 (6th Cir. 2005).

There are four cases listed. Bridgeman is the basis for the existing wording of the PD-Art tag, and addresses 2D to 2D slavish copying only. Meshworks related to 3D to 3D slavish copying, where a computer wire-frame model of a car was held to be insufficiently original for copyright protection as it amounted merely to a raw copy within a computer of the original car with no scope for individual expression. ATC held that a drawing of a mechanical part directly copied from a photograph in a competitor's catalog could not in itself attract any new copyright; it was not part of the court's role in that case to decide whether the photograph in the competitor's catalog itself had copyright or not. In Ets-Hokin it was indeed held that a particular photo of a vodka bottle attracted no copyright, but that case is notoriously difficult to extract any clear principle from - the ratio is very confused - and it does not in itelf support broadening the PD-Art tag in the way suggested.

The quotation that forms the basis of the proposed PD-Art new wording was approved in Meshwerks in the conxtext of slavish copying of an image, and immediately follows on from a reliance on the 2D to 2D slavish copying that ocurred in Brigeman and in ATC (both 2D image cases). The court was using the quote to firmly establish the 2D to 2D slavish copying rule, and from there it generalized to denying copyright protection for slavish 3D to 3D slavish copying. The court was not suggesting that for example a photograph of a sculpure would be copyright-free (3D to 2D). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

On that basis I have relucantly opposed the change on Wikipedia and would for the same reasons oppose any change here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish text misspelled

The Swedish text for the template reads "Detta foto är upphovsrättsskydat i Sverige, om det har inte tagits före 1969". The words "har inte" have been reversed, as this is a subordinate clause. It should read "Detta foto är upphovsrättsskydat i Sverige, om det inte har tagits före 1969". --Jonund (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)