Template talk:PD-US-no notice

Untitled

Are all works tagged with this not in the public domain in the listed countries, or only those that have been published in those countries? --NE2 10:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

For a work to be separately copyrighted in the listed countries, yes I think they would have to have actually been published there. Of course, for proper confirmation each case would require research specific to that county's laws and to actually know whether the work was published there or not.--Pharos 16:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Paintings

Hello,

This should be some explanation that this template doesn't apply to paintings. Yann 19:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Who says it doesn't apply to paintings? Sure it does. But almost all paintings of any significance from the 20th century have been published in catalogs, and these catalogs have had the notices of copyright.--Pharos 03:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether it applies to paintings or sculpture depends on the definition of "published" as it applies to those works. What does it mean for a painting to be published? Is a painting made in 1970, not marked with an explicit copyright notice, and held in a private collection in the public domain? I am skeptical that a court would see it that way. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

inclusive

• Please add the word inclusive, so it says "1923 and 1977, inclusive, without". -Nard the Bard 19:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, done.--Pharos (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Subject to some of the exceptions listed at [1], I propose the following addition:

Note: there are special exceptions for single copies of artwork, works published without authorization of the copyright holder, and works for which only a small number of copies have no notice.

What do you think? Dcoetzee (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

PMA

Could someone add a link or explanation of the meaning of "pma"? I had to ask at the English Wikipedia for an explanation (which was quite helpful), but surely it would make it easier for reusers to know that "pma" means "after the author's death". Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the English version of this template should link to the Wikipedia page like so:

[[w:List of Latin phrases (P)#Post_mortem_auctoris|p.m.a.]]

but note that there are other translations of this template and that if the abbreviation p.m.a. is used on those translations, they also need to link to their Wikipedias' relevant articles (list of Latin phrases; section post mortem auctoris) and I don't thing [AFAICT] any of the Wikipedias in the languages this template is in (other than English) have the relevant article section (or in some cases the article itself), so those translations would probably have to just fully explain the term instead of just linking to an article. I think the "pma" needs periods (basic grammar) and the w: should be there in case the template is seen on, say, the English Wiktionary, because of this: [2] 207.65.109.10 10:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

English fixed.--Svgalbertian (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A long lingering death or a short quick one

Why is it important that the author had a long lingering death, "Unless its author has died for several years,..." as opposed to a quick one? I think the template should read "Unless its author has been dead for several years,...". CambridgeBayWeather Talk 01:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This is unnecessary detail here anyway. I propose simply: "It may not be in the public domain in [...]" Dcoetzee (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least Castro, Kim Jong-Il and Brezhnev died several times, so I guess their images are fair game. Possibly also Elvis and Mark Twain. :)

How about "It may not be in the public domain of other countries with conflicting copyright rules. See [this page] for further explanation of US copyright rules."? Franamax (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Small correction needed in the French translation

Hi, the sentence "elle n'est pas dans le domaine public dans les pays ou régions qui n'applique pas..." should read "elle n'est pas dans le domaine public dans les pays ou régions qui n'appliquent pas" (since it's a plural). Thanks in advance. Alchemica (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

« N'hésite pas ! » ;-) -- Asclepias (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for addition

{{Editprotected}} Please add a notice/warning that this regulation only applies to work made by US citizens that's registered in the US or first published in the US. Maybe add a comment regarding movie trailers: They have to be solely US work, as soon as it incorporates foreign work or is from a US/foreign co-production this regulation only applies if the source material is also PD in the country of origin. --Denniss (talk)

I don't think so. US copyright law is very complicated -- the template is, by design, short, and cannot possible deal with all of the various ns and outs of the law.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Simplify wording

{{Editprotected}}

Please change "in the countries or areas" to "in the jurisdictions", since "areas" is quite vague, and "jurisdictions" covers both countries and non-countries more simply. Nyttend (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done the English version.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

p.m.a.

{{Editprotected}}

The "p.m.a." needs to be applied consistantly. Please put the dots in for China or remove the dots for all of them. Sven Manguard (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the wrong page. And the right one was not protected and it is now changed. -- RE rillke questions? 14:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion regarding PD-US-no notice images

There's a discussion over at the en:WP version of this template that uploaders using this template may be interested in reviewing. – JBarta (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

"further explanation" link

Until a few minutes ago this template and the counterpart at enwiki had identical last sentences but the "this page" links went to different places. Which link should we use? (also asking at enwiki) --Jeremyb (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Should this include explicit definition of Copyright notice?

I think most people won't understand what exactly constitutes "copyright notice." The English Wikipedia article Copyright notice offers some clarity, i.e. a notice should include the word "copyright" and/or © along with the year and copyright owner ("Copyright 1989, Smith Jones & Co."), with all three in close proximity. But since Wikipedia is not necessarily reliable, here is the official US Gov fact sheet which largely verifies the 3 elements of "notice": U.S. Copyright Office: Copyright notice, but even that contains some ambivalence (namely, the word "should" is less definitive than the word "must"). I raised a discussion here. The link currently in the template to this page is largely ambivalent, only discussing no notice in regards to sound recordings (footnote 15). Thus I think it would be of great use to all Commons users to include in this template an explicit, easily understood definition of what "notice" entails, and/or a link to relevant official text, but I will defer any changes to users more savvy in U.S. copyright law and template editing. Animalparty (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact sheet which you quote is a summary of the current law. Under that law notice conveys certain advantages, but is not required, hence the use of "should" rather than "must". The law that matters for the "no notice" of this template is the 1909 law, which, at section 19 says

"19. NOTICE; FORM.—The notice of copyright required by section 10 of this title shall consist either of the word “Copyright” or the abbreviation “Copr.”, accompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor, and if the work be a printed literary, musical, or dramatic work, the notice shall include also the year in which the copyright was secured by publication. In the case, however, of copies of works specified in subsections (f) to (k), inclusive, of section 5 of this title, the notice may consist of the letter C enclosed within a circle, thus ©, accompanied by the initials, monogram, mark, or symbol of the copyright proprietor: Provided, That on some accessible portion of such copies or of the margin, back, permanent base, or pedestal, or of the substance on which such copies shall be mounted, his name shall appear. But in the case of works in which copyright was subsisting on July 1, 1909, the notice of copyright may be either in one of the forms prescribed herein or may consist of the following words: “Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year —, by A. B., in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington”; or, at his option, the word “Copyright”, together with the year the copyright was entered and the name of the party by whom it was taken out; thus, “Copyright, 19--, by A. B.”"

Note that the requirements vary for different types of works -- your summary above is not correct.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• OK wow, people on Commons love to point out how people are incorrect, but less inclined to actually make helpful edits. Could we at least point people in some general direction? (I know this is discussion is way late, but the problem was never solved.) Animalparty (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggested changes

The first sentence shouldn't use "public domain" without any qualification, since it may only apply in the United States. I.e., change it to "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States ...".

In the second sentence it seems misleading to say "Unless its author has been dead for several years". If somebody died 10 years ago they've been dead for several years, but that wouldn't be enough. Change it to "Note that it may still be copyrighted in jurisdictions that do not apply the rule of the shorter term, depending on the date of the author(s) death(s).

The final sentence "See this page for further explanation" is about the US only, so perhaps should follow the first sentence. Then it would be:

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice. See this page for further explanation. Note that it may still be copyrighted in jurisdictions that do not apply the rule of the shorter term, depending on the date of the author(s) death(s), such as Canada (50 p.m.a.), Mainland China (50 p.m.a., not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 p.m.a.), Mexico (100 p.m.a.), Switzerland (70 p.m.a.), and other countries with individual treaties.

--ghouston (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• I like these proposed changes— they provide for greater specificity and less ambiguity, and think they should be implemented. Am placing a formal edit request at the top if this section so that an admin can consider these requests. KDS4444 (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Done. Kaldari (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Grammar

Please change "published and without a copyright notice" to "published without a copyright notice" so it is correct both legally and grammatically. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. On second thought, I am not certain that this is a good idea— the phrasing "and without copyright notice" makes clear that the work was indeed published in the US as well as had no copyright notice associated with it; the proposed wording loses this nuance and leaves the reader to guess if the important part is the part about when it was published or whether or not there was a copyright notice. The current wording makes clear that both conditions need to be met, though I agree it does read somewhat awkwardly! But precision is important. KDS4444 (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I see the difference mentioned by KDS4444. If we remove the "and", both conditions are still necessary, it's just less grammatically awkward. Kaldari (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Done. Kaldari (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Publication vs. distribution of visually perceptible copies

Some people are arguing at deletion that distribution is not publication, however:

• United States Copyright Office page 2 "Visually Perceptible Copies The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all three elements described below. They should appear together or in close proximity on the copies.

1 The symbol © (letter C in a circle); the word “Copyright”; or the abbreviation “Copr.”

2 The year of first publication. If the work is a derivative work or a compilation incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the derivative work or compilation is sufficient. Examples of derivative works are translations or dramatizations; an example of a compilation is an anthology. The year may be omitted when a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or useful articles.

3 The name of the copyright owner, an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of owner.1 Example © 2007 Jane Doe.") --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Trailer screenshots

This license is used for trailer screenshots, but I'm not sure if it can be used also for scenes which appear both in the trailer and in the final movie. Can you help me? --OswaldLR (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• OswaldLR: My opinion would be this: if the entire movie was published in this timeframe and had no copyright notice attached to it, then yes, this tag could be used. But if the trailer alone had no copyright notice (not unlikely) while the full movie did (also not unlikely), then I don't think this license could be used to cover a screenshot not in the trailer. There may be another suitable license, but the emphasis of this one is on the lack of notice of copyright, and if the full film had a copyright notice, then anything shown in that film would be covered by that notice, including screenshots. KDS4444 (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Can this be made time dynamic?

Now that more U.S. works will enter the public domain each year, this template will become increasingly misleading every January 1, and obviated by the more accurate {{PD-US-expired}}. Without intervention, {{PD-US-no notice}} on a work published in 1926 will next year misleadingly state "because it was published in the United States between 1927 and 1977", and the next year even more incorrectly "between 1928 and 1977". As an analogue to {{PD-old-auto-expired}}, could there be a parameter publication year= or year= that would automatically display a copyright expiration notice? Or a new template built? Otherwise, mass template replacements may be warranted, which is time-consuming, and may introduce unintended errors. --Animalparty (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Canada’s copyright length changed

{{Edit request}}

Canada’s copyright length changed from 50 to 70 pma. Can you change that? I found the information at https://creativecommons.org/2021/03/09/our-response-to-canadas-copyright-term-extension-consultation/.

--23.115.137.65 23:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

That blog only discusses a proposed copyright term extension, as far as I can tell – it doesn’t say whether it’s been implemented yet. Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Second to Lucas, Better to discuss this panorama via Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Canada. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Typo or misspelling

Hello guys. I think in the text by "Macao" it may refer to "Macau". Well I just looked up the term and "Macao" turns out to be also acceptable. Perhaps we should discuss which one of these two is the better to be used in this template. According to my experience, the spelling "Macau" is the most common among the English speakers I know. Born in mainland China, my experience tells me "Macau" is the commonly-accepted spelling among the people who have English language skills there. Theanonymity.de (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

One year past, but I still think we should better discuss whether we should alter it or not, this looks like a bit "BRE" issue, like centre, licence, metre, etc. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Change 1927 to 1928

{{Edit request}}

Due to works before 1928 expiring, change 1927 to 1928. See COM:HIRTLE for reference. --Matr1x-101^{Pinging me doesn't hurt!} {user - talk? - useless contributions} 11:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done — The template uses {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}} for the date, so the update is automatic, although it may take a bit for the server to update every page that needs to change when the value of {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}} changes. —RP88 (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)