Template talk:PD-1923

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

Published in the U.S.[edit]

It shouldn't say published in the U.S. Per Cornell's copyright chart, a work published anywhere before 1923 is public domain in the U.S. Superm401 - Talk 02:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but commons, though hosted in Florida, uses a different scheme than en. En accepts any images out of copyright in the US - on commons, they must be out of copyright in the host country. Patstuart (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I've made a clarification to that effect, noting that for the image to be here, it should also be PD in the source country. However, it doesn't seem like this distinction is widely enforced here. Superm401 - Talk 17:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to revert your edit... that's the point. If originally published in the US, the US is the source country. -Nard 02:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You haven't reverted my edit, and I don't understand what you mean by "the point". Under U.S. law, any image, published anywhere in the world before 1923, is public domain. Images can be uploaded to Commons if they are public domain in their source countries, as well as the U.S. Thus, images must be public domain in their source country to use this template. However, there is no requirement that the source country by the U.S. (because that is neither a requirement of U.S. law nor Commons). Superm401 - Talk 07:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
In fact, that is the point. It is a widely enforced rule on commons, and if they're in public domain in their home country, then we use the template for that country. Thus we have {{PD-Iraq}}, {{PD-Argentina}}, etc. Patstuart (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
None of those templates do anything to show it's PD in the US. It must be PD in both jurisdictions. Superm401 - Talk 06:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it mustn't in fact. If it's public domain in the home country a) I think that it qualifies as PD in the US most the time anyway, and b) I believe commons allows it anyway. Patstuart (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it must. If Commons publishes content that is copyrighted in the U.S., it's violating the law. Thus, we must avoid doing so. It's that simple. Superm401 - Talk 04:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
See Commons:Licensing, which explicitly says PD content must be "in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." Superm401 - Talk 04:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Then, I believe that {{PD-Argentina}}, {{PD-Tunisia}}, and others need to be nominated for deletion (care to offer?). Interestingly, this text is not present in other language versions of COM:L, and this discrepancy needs to be addressed. Again, care to starta a discussion there? Patstuart (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't have to be deleted, though I agree they are sometimes misused. Argentinian (or Tunisian, etc.) PD photos can only be uploaded if they are also PD in the U.S. I have started a thread at Commons_talk:Licensing#Source_country_and_U.S. to confirm this. Superm401 - Talk 01:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please remove the "published in the U.S." part again. For U.S. works, use {{PD-US}}, and if you want to make clear it's PD in the U.S. because of it having been published before 1923, add {{PD-1923}}. This template should also apply to foreign works, but it's not a stand-alone template. See the discussion Superm401 linked above. Lupo 08:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


I've now restated this tag; please tell me what you think. I've taken out the part about published in the United States, and instead stated that it is public domain the US and its home country. I have also removed the included category (PD US), as I didn't think it belonged. Please feel free to comment or make any changes. Patstuart (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This can be a stand-alone image tag, when the image is first published in the U.S. If the image is first published outside the U.S. before 1923, then there should be this tag, and another one that applies to the source country. Superm401 - Talk 06:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Other Languages[edit]

{{editprotected}} Could somebody please, add the template in portuguese in it {{PD-1923/pt}}?Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. Sorry it took so long ^^ --Waldir talk 19:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry =D. And thanks.Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Add link to translation to spanish {{PD-1923/es}}. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done by Locos epraix himself on Template:PD-1923/lang. Note for future editors/translators: editprotected requests are not needed, edit that page directly since it is not protected as of now. If it eventually becomes protected, add the request to Template talk:PD-1923/lang, not here. Thanks, Waldir talk 08:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


If the work is not a U.S. work, the file must have an additional copyright tag indicating the copyright status in the source country

i don't understand, if its US and published before 1923, the correct tag is {{PD-US}}, no ? this template is for Public Domain in USA because first published before 1923 outside USA by non US citizens or US citizens living abroad. As stated here : {{PD-old}} & look here for explanation : http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

first sentence should also say : This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside United States before January 1, 1923 by foreign nationals or U.S. citizens living Abroad

Are you really sure we need a second tag for copyright status from country of origin, in all cases ? --Lilyu (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposition :

Public domain
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1923.

US on not-US[edit]

I think we have a huge problem here. This template duplicates in some part {{PD-US}}, concerning works first published in the US before 1923. But it also concerns works published in other countries before 1923. OK, the template says that they should be PD also in that country, but then, why should we note that they are also PD in the US? A correct tag for the primary copyright status should be enough for the image to be hosted in Commons. Is there any chance that an image could be PD in the source country of the work and NOT PD in the US? With this template some people believe (although the template mentions that a second tag is needed) that it covers all images before 1923 (it does, but not in that way) in fact leaving them without an appropriate license notice. Examples: File:Hans Christian Andersen.jpg, File:General view of the principality, Monaco, Riviera.jpg, File:Aggelos Giallinas.JPG. We should have a function discovering files with this tag only, or discard the whole concept of "tagging the copyright status in the US" when this depends on the copyright status elsewhere. --Geraki TLG 17:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Case of PD-US but not PD-source-country: In 1922, Alf (a 24-year-old Frenchman) took a photo of a celebrity and published it. Alf died at the ripe old age of 90 years in 1988. His 1922 work is public domain in the US by the country's law (publishing before 1923); however, his work only goes into French public domain at the start of 2079 (70 years pma).
  • Case of PD-source-country but not PD-US: In 1955, Lee (a 24-year-old Chinese) took a photo of Deng Xiaopeng and published it. Under the country's law, his work enters the Chinese public domain on the start of 2006 (50 years of protection). However, under US law, it was "solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996"; hence it is still copyrighted in the US until 2051 (95 years of protection).
In summary, a material in the US public domain may not be public domain in its source country and vice versa; the PD-1923 template is used to indicate work's copyright status in the US. Jappalang (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems the latter example is irrelevant as it does not have to do with the 1923-limit. But what I'm talking about is exactly the first case:
The template itself declares that the work "must be out of copyright in both the United States and in the source country of the work in order to be hosted on the Commons." So, that 1922 french photo would not be allowed to be hosted in Commons. But if Alf had died in 1937 the photo would be public domain in France, so {{PD-old}} would be enough. There is no need to mention the US copyright since it's public domain worldwide. If it's a US work, {{PD-US}} would also be enough. So this templates is just messing everything. --Geraki TLG 11:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Include registration before 1923[edit]

{{Editprotected}} Per discussions here and here, please change "... because it was published before January 1, 1923." to "... because it was registered with the U.S. Copyrights Office or published before January 1, 1923." Jappalang (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done (Even though you could have done it yourself, the text is on an unprotected Template:PD-1923/en.) --Mormegil (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Needs a Country param to suppress warning[edit]

This template currently always outputs a warning that files must be PD in the source country, even for files first published in the US before 1923. There should be a |country=US parameter that suppresses that warning for such files. --Xover (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Propose rename to not mention a year[edit]

On 1 January 2019 the title and text of this template becomes outdated as anything published before 1924 is in the public domain. Thereafter every year the date goes up.

By the transclusion count Wikimedia Commons is currently using this template 382,842 times. There are variations of this template which also mention 1923. Perhaps this date is on several hundred thousand or even millions of other templates, all of which will need correction in about 4 months.

While it is easy to change the text of a template it is not easy to change the filename. One edit changes the text; in about 4 months we will have to do one edit per file to change the template on hundreds of thousands of files. The change should be to a name which does not reference a year and so which would make sense perpetually.

What proposal does anyone have for a new name for this? What proposal does anyone have for scheduling and executing updates?

I created a new project page at Commons:Public Domain Day. Since I think this is a challenge for many pages on Wikimedia Commons, I propose that central discussion happen there unless someone identifies another space which is already established or better developed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

We could just redirect to {{PD-old-95}} and update the rationale over there: "This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 95 years or less, or the copyright term is 95 years from the date of first publication." De728631 (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Next steps[edit]

  1. Collect some proposals for new names
  2. Draft a proposal to change right here
  3. mention Commons:Rename a template - there is no Commons discussion process specifically for renaming or deleting templates
  4. Start Rfc per Commons:Requests for comment
  5. Advertise RfC at Commons:Centralized discussion
  6. get admin to mass rename the template (300k+ templates)

Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's rather have a centralised discussion at Commons talk:Public Domain Day because proposal and arguments have also been made there. De728631 (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)