Template talk:PD-text

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

Ambiguous?[edit]

Could this be misunderstood by any considerable number of readers as "books are not protected by copyright unless printed using a funny typeface"? --AVRS (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to address this issue by specifying the details, but so far it is only showing up on the /en version (click on "English") and not the main version. 71.198.176.22 16:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding length[edit]

I've recently been looking at some copyright violations such as File:Gatley medical centre.jpg. Sometimes uploaders (e.g. at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lendal Tower, York (21st October 2010) 001.jpg) argue that such photos should be PD-text, because they consist entirely of text. It's pretty clear that a photograph of a page of a book or a newspaper should not be public domain merely because it consists only of text. I propose modifying this template to more clearly emphasise that it only applies to text that is "too short [or brief] to be eligible for copyright." Dcoetzee (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

With no response for a few days, I've decided to be bold and make this modification. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the issue is so much with the length of the text but the fact that this template should generally apply to 2D text which File:Gatley medical centre.jpg obviously is not. Ww2censor (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree - I don't think whether the text is 2D or 3D should make much difference (this may affect whether we need permission from the photographer, but not whether we need permission from the author of the text. The example of photographing and uploading a page from a bestselling book is a good example of where PD-text should not apply. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Good point Dcoetzee. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The template is about the uncopyrightability (in many countries anyways) of typeface. It says nothing about a literary copyright on a paragraph (or more) of text. Short phrases and basic lists etc. would not be copyrightable, but photographing a literary copyright is an entirely different issue. Literary copyrights have nothing to do with 2D vs 3D; they are a copyright on the sequence of words. That is entirely outside the scope of this tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Spot on, and if the template implies otherwise it should be clarified. A distinction must be drawn between artistic and literary works. A text in a fancy typeface can amount to both. However, as an artistic work under US law typefaces are not copyrightable. On the other hand, it may be copyrightable as a literary work. The issue is how substantial the text is. I don't know if there is any US case law on this, but I would imagine that anything more than a short sentence or perhaps a couple of lines on a sign (I'm thinking of road signs like "NO PARKING – VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED" rather than descriptive signs such as those mentioned above) would embody enough creativity to be copyrightable as a literary work. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we all agree, but it's just a matter of how best to word it on the template to avoid any further confusion about its purpose. I think my current wording in the note is a bit imprecise in that it fails to account for mere lists, etc. but I think the use of the word "literary work" would probably imply an idea that is unnecessarily narrow. If you have suggestions for revisions please be bold. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Proper English punctuatino[edit]

{{adminprotected}}

Please change

„literary work“

to

"literary work"

„text“ is not used in English. Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. (it’s {{editprotected}}) --AVRS (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)