Hi. Are images on Wikimedia Commons have to be public domain worldwide or should we take some prejudice of the servers location in the U.S.?
As is well known, images published before 1923 in the U.S. are public domain in the U.S and probably worldwide (unless the opposite can be suspected). Images published anywhere in the world before 1923 is also public domain in the United States , but many other countries apply the 70 years pma -- "after death of author".
How zealous should we be? Is the 70 pma always to be applied?
What if it is uncertain who the creator is, and whether he did more than 70 years ago -- would it then be possible to keep the images for the time being if the image was created before 1923 (such as images from World War I)?
/ Fred (a.k.a. [[User:Fred-Chess]])
How zealous should we be? Is the 70 pma always to be applied?
I certainly hope not. I waver in my opinion on the importance of Avoiding Copyright Paranoia, but I don't see what's wrong with respecting national laws. And I find it highly unlikely that in doing so, we will be a target for claims of copyright infringement.
But then, I'm not a lawyery person. I trust anyone more lawyery than me will let me know if I'm dead wrong.
Brianna
2006/4/29, Fredrik Josefsson fred_chessplayer@yahoo.se:
Hi. Are images on Wikimedia Commons have to be public domain worldwide or should we take some prejudice of the servers location in the U.S.?
As is well known, images published before 1923 in the U.S. are public domain in the U.S and probably worldwide (unless the opposite can be suspected). Images published anywhere in the world before 1923 is also public domain in the United States , but many other countries apply the 70 years pma -- "after death of author".
How zealous should we be? Is the 70 pma always to be applied?
What if it is uncertain who the creator is, and whether he did more than 70 years ago -- would it then be possible to keep the images for the time being if the image was created before 1923 (such as images from World War I)?
My own proposal for policy on this point was to go with the laws of the country of the original author.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
On 4/29/06, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
My own proposal for policy on this point was to go with the laws of the country of the original author.
Should the nationality of the author take precedence over the place of first publication?
-Matt
2006/4/29, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com:
On 4/29/06, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
My own proposal for policy on this point was to go with the laws of the country of the original author.
Should the nationality of the author take precedence over the place of first publication?
Hmmm... That's an interesting question.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
On 4/29/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Should the nationality of the author take precedence over the place of first publication?
To add to my own post: considering the citizenship of the author gives the problem of what happens when the multiple authors of a work have different citizenship. And what if the work was written in a nation different from the author's citizenship?
First publication is certainly easier, unless there is a good reason why not.
As far as I remember, it's generally advised to only use the pre-1923 date for works first published within the United States. Possibly treaty obligations (Berne Convention, among others) override national law when it comes to works originating from outside.
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
On 4/29/06, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
My own proposal for policy on this point was to go with the laws of the country of the original author.
Should the nationality of the author take precedence over the place of first publication?
To be safe, we should use whatever is the most restrictive - ie. if it's PD-old in one but life+70 still applies in another, we wait. I wish it was still "25 from publication unless extended" though - stupid Disney...