Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/United States

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

Paper money

[edit]

Is US paper money okay to upload on Commons?

This page says it's not okay, but there's lots of that's been uploaded already.

Benjamin (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to say okay. Benjamin (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looks like it was changed to "not OK" in 2017 in an edit which was supposed to clarify, but did not. Section 474 of U.S. law is limited by section 504, which permits reproductions given size and color limitations, and 31 CFR 411.1 allows color reproductions (again given the size and one-sided limitations listed). Regan v. Time, Inc. made clear that any crimes in 18 USC 474 (which are usually when there is intent for fraud) are only for situations where 18 USC 504 does not apply (a clause of 504 which restricted to educational use or similar purposes was struck down by that decision as violating the first amendment). So it would seem, per those links, that images are OK to upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

It might be worth adding a note somewhere to make it easy for users to find external sources explaining joint ownership and how it's often far from settled, but on this page it would seem unnecessarily prominent so I'm just leaving a talk page note. In USA there are tensions between federal law, particularly § 201(e), and state law on matters such as community property and the consequences of marriage or divorce.

Nemo 08:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More US subnational territories that could probably use PD templates

[edit]

Hi there,

I notice that there are a variety of US states with their own public domain templates. I have found this very useful, and have used it on several occasions for public documents from those states.

I notice that there are a number of states with very permissive public record copyright schemes that don't yet have templates. These include: Indiana, New Jersey, and North Carolina.

I am not at all familiar with the creation of templates, and I may not be best-suited to make these additional templates if they are reasonable. Is there a resource I could look at? Is there anyone who'd be interested in making these templates?

Jlevi (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Public record is not the same thing as public domain, copyright-wise. We would need to see a law specifically address copyright when it comes to them, or a court decision, or something like that. Otherwise, fair use may well cover a much wider range of uses when something is a public record, but the works are still under copyright. From http://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/ which "scores" the openness of state government works, we have three of the four green ones. Virginia is light green because they are supposed to promote the use of Creative Commons licenses, which would in turn mean that by default Virginia government works are still copyrighted, and we would need to see the release. Nothing in the notes for Indiana, New Jersey, or North Carolina would indicate public domain status for their public records. Another place where stuff is documented is Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response, Clindberg. It looks like I may have misinterpreted the information for Indiana and NJ. However, it looks like the "public record ==> public domain" status may exist in North Carolina codes.
By NC statutes: "The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people." in their public record law, § 132-1 (b).
By the same statutes, some very particular kinds of records, such as GIS data, are excluded, however(§ 132-10).
An example of an NC state agency interpreting this statue very broadly is here, provided by the State Library of North Carolina. They say: "The items added most frequently to the NCDC by the Government and Heritage Library are North Carolina state publications. Most of these items are considered to be in the public domain, pursuant to General Statute 132-1b. For those few state publications that do carry copyright restrictions, a rights release is secured and kept on file before the item is made available to the general public."
Given this, it appears that almost all public records in NC are deemed public domain. I may of course be misinterpreting, as I am not a lawyer. I could try to find additional information about this if it would be useful.
Thanks for your time and help, Jlevi (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting, though as the Harvard page notes, other parts of their law refer to "property of the state". That may be more physical objects though, not intellectual property. I'm not sure we have an explicit opinion. The terms of use of the main government website says Unless otherwise noted on an individual document, the state of North Carolina grants permission to copy and distribute non-image files, documents, and information for non-commercial use, provided they are copied and distributed without alteration. That sure seems as though they are claiming copyright ownership and limiting permission based on such. I think the wording in their law is tantalizing, but I'm not sure we have enough evidence to say they are fully public domain under federal copyright law, versus just being available for anyone to obtain copies. It has been deleted from here once and en-wiki multiple times (such as en:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 August 22#Template:PD-NCGov). For the state tags that we do have, there was something more concrete (a court decision, or a statement which addressed copyright status explicitly). The NC public records law itself does seem promising, but there is no additional reinforcement from anywhere else that I can see. As such, it may be a bit to iffy for us to declare such works PD -- there could still be a significant doubt per COM:PRP. In other words, we aren't lawyers either, and we would prefer a court case or government official validate that opinion before we assume such status for their works :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to chat about this. Sounds fair. Jlevi (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: I got access to some relevant pages from this book, which has been described as a "comprehensive guide to the state’s public records laws and their interpretation by the courts" and is suggested to state employees as a solid resource. It also looks like some local agencies use this resource do designate types of records that are exempt. I think it basically supports your argument--there is not yet a solid court justification in either direction, and in practice the state occasionally seems to express its right to copyright. On the other hand, it seems that there may be a Template:Copyrighted free use quality for almost every public record--the state explicitly allows commercial, non-commercial, and un-attributed use of its records. I'll track down relevant quotes and add them here. Could this be useful in clarifying our general policies? Jlevi (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do they have somewhere they specifically allow commercial use? That sounds interesting, if that is in a copyright context. Websites can always have their own terms of use which qualify for a free license. In general though, a public record is not the same thing as public domain in a copyright sense. The usual example is that court evidence is public record -- and for a copyright infringement case, you would have to enter the work in question into evidence, so it becomes a public record at that point. However, of course it can't become public domain -- if it did, the copyright owner would suddenly lose their copyright if they tried to enforce it. Public records laws are more about allowing the general public access to records, unless if there is a privacy or national security reason -- records that are not exempt must be made available. That does *not* mean they are public domain -- they can still under copyright. I am sure that fair use gets expanded, as using such records in the context of their status as a public record is probably OK (e.g. a news article about a copyright case). But it doesn't mean you can use the work any way you want, most of the time.
The states that do allow stuff are where the public record laws are so unlimited that the courts, or someone in authority at least, has determined that for government-authored public records only, there is no copyright since the law effective made them public domain. They obviously can't control public records created by others -- those always retain copyright. Generally, we look for a reference which explicitly references copyright itself -- if all it talks about are public records and making copies, they are not discussing the interaction with copyright law, to the point that copyright itself is invalidated. Most of the time, they just mention that the fact something is copyrighted is not a reason to exempt it from a request (i.e. making a copy to satisfy the request should fall under fair use). The default is that they are still under copyright though, and any further free license would be voluntary. Does that book mention copyright law explicitly, as opposed to just talking about making copies? Would of course be interested. Any specific discussion on the interaction with copyright law would be helpful, for sure. But unless there is a ruling that a state's law actually removes copyright altogether (or the law itself says so), we assume they are not fully free, as you said, because there's not enough precedent for that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gotchya. Looking back at this material again, I think I misinterpreted. So, first, on copyright: "For those reasons, it is likely that G.S. 132-10 does not restrict a local government's ability to assert rights as copyright owner with respect to categories of public records besides GIS databases" (Lawrence 56). And the laws are pretty careful not to reference each other: "Neither the federal copyright statutes nor the North Carolina public records statutes make any reference to the other..." (Lawrence 52). Seems like I might have been hallucinating--I'll need to retrace my steps a little. Oh well. Jlevi (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images of lottery tickets

[edit]

Does anyone know what the copyright status for images of lottery tickets in the United States is? I can't find any information about it and imagine it would very by state. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: Copyrighted unless excluded by state exception.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

URAA

[edit]

We have a text saying that some works that was PD in the US had their protection restored by URAA. The logic question would be "Okay but when will that protection expire?". Could we make a short text explaining the rules for such works? It could either be explained here or with a link to Commons:URAA-restored_copyrights where there allready are some examples.

"Works that was not in the public domain on the URAA date are protected for life + 70 years and for anonymous works publish + 95 years / create + 120 years (whichever is shorter)."

It's not perfect but its a try :-) --MGA73 (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restored works follow normal U.S. terms as if they had copyright notice and were renewed. I.e., works published before 1978 are 95 years from publication, and other possibilities if they were published 1978 or later (all described elsewhere on the page). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Publication

[edit]

Thomas F. Cotter's "Towards a Functional Definition of Publication in Copyright Law" can be downloaded free at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1019263 .--RZuo (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PD-TXGov

[edit]

I would appreciate input at COM:VPC#PD-TXGov from users familiar with US state copyright laws. If the "PD-TXGov"is OK, it could mean that this page needs to be updated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stamps

[edit]

This page claims all pre-1978 stamps are public domain as works of the United States government. However, the US Copyright office states that stamps 1971 and before are public domain. Then there is a possibility of stamps 1972-1978 COULD be copyrighted. Should we add that distincition? MonkeyBBGB (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MonkeyBBGB: What's the "could" for stamps published between 1972-1978 based on? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1 the U.S. Copyright Office source that @MonkeyBBGB gave provides some clue. All stamps from 1971 and before are PD. Afterwards, stamps might fall under standard terms (but I think someone should check for the registration records of 1972–78 stamps if ever, if eligible for {{PD-US-no notice}}). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to check whether post-1964 TV videos are with or without notice?

[edit]

It's not simple to determine whether or not something is or isn't in the public domain (PD/CCBY/…). It's too complicated for most potential volunteer contributors. What's the easiest way to check? Is there maybe a tool where you enter an url and it returns the license or a yes or no regarding whether or not it's in the public domains?
For example, I'd like to check whether this BBC episode (see Horizon) can be uploaded here: 1964: Arthur C. Clarke predicts the future (Internet etc) Prototyperspective (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Works are copyrighted, not web pages, so entering a URL will most likely not work. This particular case is further complicated by the fact that it’s a BBC film, i.e. its country of origin is the United Kingdom. On the other hand, this fact makes things simpler: the UK doesn’t have the concept of copyright notice (at least that page doesn’t mention it), works are generally protected 70 years pma – since we’re far from even the 70 years past publication, let alone 70 years pma, it’s copyrighted. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I know that it's about works of course. The script would parse what the content is based on file descriptions, title, and other metadata – maybe sth like that exists so people don't always have to go through these decision trees checking things manually. Don't know why I asked about it here rather than the page about the U.K., I think I first read the copyright info and then looked for a good example to ask about it.
Do you know where that 70 years come from? It seems like a very long time and I wouldn't even know how to check for that either since it's probably not on record who all was involved in recording and editing these interviews assuming they fully hold the copyright. So I guess it would be PD in 2034. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States&oldid=924297285"