Template talk:PD-US-no notice-UN

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Note[edit]

Following the resolution of Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-UN and the discussion at Template talk:PD-UN the only U.N. works that are likely to be PD are trivial works ineligible for copyright (and thus {{PD-ineligible}}) or works published by the U.N. in the U.S. before 17 September 1987 as prior to that date the U.N. had an official policy of deliberately not complying with U.S. copyright formalities (and thus these works can be tagged with {{PD-US-no notice-UN}}). See those discussions for details. —RP88 04:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Where does the 1987 date come from? Shouldn't it be "before 1 March 1989" instead? --Stefan4 (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
On 17 September 1987 the U.N. revised their copyright policy (in ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2). Prior to 17 September 1987 the U.N. had a blanket policy of deliberately not complying with U.S. copyright formalities on all of their works except for an explicit list of works that they exempted from the general policy. After that date the U.N. greatly expanded the list of works for which they would seek copyright, liberalized their exemption policy such that it is difficult to rely on the general classes of documents that they said they would continue to not claim copyright, and they stopped publishing a list of exempted works. For Commons this means that U.N. works published in the U.S. after 17 September 1987 aren't reliably PD-US, each source document has to be individually examined for a copyright notice and subsequent copyright registration. —RP88 13:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the date of the document. However, the document also tells that "Some publications have been copyrighted", so it seems that we should actually locate the document to see if there is a copyright notice present. Also, all UN works first published in the United States without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989 should be fine. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Prior to the adoption of ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 all copyrighted documents were listed in the appendix to ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.1, so we don't actually have to see if there is a copyright notice if we know the document was published in the U.S and not on the list. Not all UN works first published in the United States without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989 are fine. For works after 17 September 1987 we have to check for subsequent copyright registration (I only did an exhaustive check of the registrations that could conceivably been for the pre-17 September 1987 works (i.e. through 1993). —RP88 13:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Basically, this is how I see the review of files tagged with {{PD-UN}} going:

Does the work appear in a document published by the U.N. in the U.S. prior to 17 September 1987?
YES. Is that document listed in the appendix of ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.1?
YES. Nominate for deletion.
NO. Tag file with {{PD-US-no notice-UN}}
NO. Does the work appear in a document published by the U.N. in the U.S. from 17 September 1987 to 1 March 1989?
YES. Does the document have a copyright notice?
YES. Nominate for deletion.
NO. Did the document have its copyright subsequently registered within five years?
YES. Nominate for deletion.
NO. Tag file with {{PD-US-1978-89}} (with the caveat that the rule of shorter term blurb on this tag is probably incorrect for works that originate with the U.N.).
NO. Does the work appear in a document that has a Commons compatible license or is otherwise PD?
YES. Tag with appropriate Commons copyright tag.
NO. Nominate for deletion.

RP88 13:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

How did the list in ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.1 come about? Did those documents have the the copyright notice? --DHeyward (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Prior to 17 September 1987 it was the policy of the U.N. to not seek copyright. If a department of the U.N. wanted to copyright a work they had to apply to the U.N. Publications Board for permission. The works that received permission are listed in the Annex to ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.1. If the Publications Board granted permission the manuscript was sent to the U.N. Office for Legal Affairs to handle copyright registration. If Legal Affairs did their job correctly, they insured that a valid copyright notice was present on every work they registered for copyright. Prior to 1 March 1989 the U.S. required all works published in the U.S. to have a copyright notice, those that did not could fall into the public domain in the U.S. I suppose it is possible that one or more of the works listed in the Annex didn't have a copyright notice, and thus PD in the US, but absent direct examination of the document, I think we have to assume all the documents listed in the Annex are protected by copyright. —RP88 (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
So is copyright controlled by the list or by the document markings that was released with it in the U.S.? I understand the reasoning but I don't have the history to know whether the annex was adopted by US Copyright Office as special or whether all the documents comported with U.S. Copyright law. The clincher for me (and I'd withdraw nomination with understanding) is if this was an agreement with the U.S. that the annex list was copyright protected and thereby making the annex a controlling document of U.N. copyright. Or whether the list was a compendium of documents that already comported to U.S. Copyright law. The former would make the annex (in the whole) a controlling agreement, the latter is a reference of convenience. Does that make sense? If the copyright office and the courts could care less about the annex list and only care about the individual document history in the U.S., that lends support to ignore the other provisions in the annex as it's merely for convenience. If the U.S. and courts view the annex as having standing for the document copyright status, then the annex other provisions likely have standing. My understanding as to what you are saying is the list in the annex is for convenience and has no standing in determining copyright. We presume it is correct for convenience and so the annex is useful as a first indication but in no way is the reason why a document is copyrighted. Is that correct? --DHeyward (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.1 and ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 have no special standing with U.S. Copyright Office and the U.S. hasn't enacted any laws that incorporate either into U.S. copyright law. They document U.N. policy, their intentions under that policy, and (via the Annex to Rev.1) a record of their actions under the policy. In the U.S. after 1 March 1989 all works are presumed to be copyrighted, but before that date an author had to take certain affirmative steps to secure U.S. copyright and if they failed to do so the work could fall into the public domain in the United States. So an official U.N. document saying how and when they took those steps is useful when trying to determine the copyright status of an early work of the United Nations. Commons hosts works that are copyrighted but available under a free license (like {{cc-by-2.0}}), works that were never copyrighted (such as works of the U.S government {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-textlogo}}), works that were formerly copyrighted but now in the public domain due to expiration of a copyright term (like {{PD-old-100}}), or works in the public domain due to the failure to comply with copyright formalities (i.e. {{PD-US-not_renewed}}, {{PD-US-no_notice}} and {{PD-US-1978-89}}. Berne convention countries have never permitted copyright formalities, which is why the final category is largely a U.S. issue. Determining whether a work is PD due is failure to comply with copyright formalities pretty much always involves some research, i.e. checking for registration, looking at renewal records, examining the original document for proper notice, etc. Because substantial work might be involved and some of these issues are subjective, with certain high profile sources we've tried to do as much of the research as possible in order to assist future uploaders. For example, {{PD-US-no notice-UN}} is just a version of {{PD-US-no notice}} that says "the Commons community thinks U.N. documents meeting X, Y, and Z are PD-US-no notice". For comparison, take a look at {{PD-US-not_renewed-TIME}}. That is a version of {{PD-US-not renewed}} that says "the Commons community thinks the following covers of TIME magazine are PD-US-not renewed". —RP88 (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Use of the logo in the Template design.[edit]

Possibly a nit. We have the "emblem use restrictions" boilerplate on the image for the UN. I'd suggest we use another image for the template as it appears we are implying the UN has endorsed the template or the more slippery assumption that the UN has endorsed the copyright status of works tagged with the template. I don't believe we have permission to use the emblem this way. --DHeyward (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The style layout was inherited from the old {{PD-UN}}. I think the use of insignia as a source identifier is in line with Commons practice, see for instance the use of the FBI seal on {{PD-USGov-FBI}}, the US Department of the Army seal on {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}, or the UK Royal Coat of Arms on {{PD-UKGov}}. While I don't much care either way, I do see your point. Do you object specifically to the use of insignia in this license tag, or do you think the entire practice is suspect? If the latter, I'd encourage you to post your concern to Commons:Village Pump/Copyright. —RP88 (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
It would be in general. It's nit in the overall picture but probably a practice we should stop. It's a wink and nod approach to our boilerplate warnings. --DHeyward (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, I see you opened the discussion at COM:VPC, excellent, I'll respond there. —RP88 (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)