Template talk:Not-PD-US-URAA/Archive 1

Top

I'm also not sure it is a good idea... but anyways, the template now mentions the things we have been discussing about. / Fred Chess 16:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I am however curious about how much liability that can be sought of a non-commercial image provider for hosting an image which only incidentally happens to be copyrighted in that country, an image that would be fine to host in any other country and thus be available just as easy by the internet. Fred Chess 16:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fred, I don't think it's about liability. It's abount honesty. We should not claim something was PD in the U.S. when it isn't. The Liability issue is something the foundation has to sort out. It's their call to tell us whether we may host such images or not. Lupo 07:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Further comment: please note that the template

1. was proposed tongue-in-cheek, and
2. was intended to take two parameters.

In its current form (with "France" and "1996" hardcoded), it doesn't make much sense. I have, for the time being, modified it to some other static text. (I'm not well versed in the template syntax for parameters with default values.) Lupo 07:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Test template

This work may not be in the public domain in the United States because its U.S. copyright was restored by the URAA as it was still copyrighted in its source country (Sweden) on the URAA date (1 January 1996). In most cases, it is copyrighted in the U.S. until 95 years after the year in which it was initially published (exceptions are works published after 1977; see Commons:Hirtle chart). This template may not be used for files uploaded after 1 March 2012. If you are the copyright holder of this file, and do not wish to have it hosted on Commons, please contact our designated agent or nominate the file for deletion, explaining the situation.

---

This is how it would look currently, with the parameters "Sweden" and "1997".

Fred Chess 10:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Pasted from my talk page

See m:User talk:Anthere#commons:Commons_talk:Licensing#Pros_and_Cons. The "non-response" mentioned there is here. I'm posting this here instead of at the VP because I want to avoid that the whole discussion migrates now to her talk page there, flooding her with tons of messages. Whatever the outcome, I think we should tag such images that are not PD in the U.S. (Required anyway if we'll be allowed to keep them, and if not, we'll already have done part of the job and can easily identify affected images.) Lupo 19:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. So you think we should use the template template:Not-PD-US-URAA? / Fred Chess 23:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Something like that. I don't particularly like this tag: we'd end up with images tagged with {{PD-Old}} (which says that the work is PD in the U.S.) followed by {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} (contradicting this statement). Maybe a new PD-Old-Non-US tag that says that the work is PD in 70 years p.m.a. countries, but still copyrighted in the U.S. due to the URAA restorations, and replacing PD-Old on the images affected by this new tag (instead of adding Not-PD-US-URAA) would be a better way of doing things because the resulting image description page would not have that contradiction. (Feel free to copy this thread to Template talk:Not-PD-US-URAA.) Lupo 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Going live

Per Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_9#Now_we_have_to_tag_all_post-1922_content_of_creators_who_died_after_1925, I'm going live with this template. It adds images to Category:Works copyrighted in the U.S. Lupo 09:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Legality

I don't see how images with this tag are possibly legal. Commons has to comply with U.S. copyright law. Please see Commons_talk:Licensing#Source_country_and_U.S.. Superm401 - Talk 19:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In order to fully enforce the Foundation's Licensing Policy, local Wikis that now disable local uploading have to reopen local uploading to claim American fair use for images that are PD in most countries. Otherwise, if any images are PD in 70 pma countries and sourced in any of them but copyrighted in the USA, I consider that the Foundation should allow Commons to claim limited fair use in cooperation with local Wikis in the following scenario:

1. There should be no gallery display on Commons, whether in articles or categories, which would not be fair enough in the USA without violating GFDL.
2. Honestly admit Not-PD-US-URAA and indicate the copyright status in the source countries and 70 pma countries. Only a few countries copyright for life plus more than 70 years.
3. Use them in relevant pages on local Wikis only.
4. Indicate which pages use them.
5. Explain why such uses contend to be fair in the USA without violating GFDL.--Jusjih 00:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use is explicitly banned on Commons, and I strongly believe this should not be changed. However, this is not the right place to discuss this. Superm401 - Talk 01:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is the better place to discuss this? In order to keep the total ban here local uploading may have to be turned back on. I need a better place to talk or I will withhold all donations to Wiki.--Jusjih 01:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

When the Foundation licensing policy was passed in March 2007, it did not address the problem right here very well. Meta page Non-free_content shows which local Wikis disallow local uploading. As the Foundation site requires approval to log in and to edit, I am looking for a Meta page to discuss this and any referral as which page will be appreciated. Pending that, I have to withhold all donations to Wikimedia for its insufficient attention that leaves us a major uncertainty. I am also asking if Wikilivres, hosted in Canada, will take Not-PD-US-URAA images there provided they are PD in Canada, so in case we have to reluctantly delete these images here, we can still see most of them there.--Jusjih 02:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC) (also registered at Wikilivres with the same username)

Commons is not just the place where Wikimedia puts its common content. It's specifically designed to be a repository for free media. Non-free media should be hosted on the individual wikis (this may mean reenabling uploading), or on a separate non-free repository which would need to be created. Superm401 - Talk 18:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Commons talk:Licensing is an appropriate place for this kind of discussion. Superm401 - Talk 18:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

not permitted on commons

{{editprotected}} Please add the words "This is not a valid license on Commons! A valid license template must accompany this tag or this image will be deleted!" or something to that effect. -Nard the Bard 02:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Are we sure that's the case? The template currently says we don't know if that's the case, and the discussion above doesn't seem determinant... I'd be reluctant to change that wording until we have a consensus on that issue.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think what Nard the Bard meant is that we cannot have images bearing only this tag. There must be a tag stating why the picture is PD in the country of origin. Then, we attach this tag to indicate that it is not PD in the US (and only then, there is no consensus what we should do). --Botev (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's it. I say this because I have seen images tagged with only this, or this and some other non-applicable template (GFDL). But I think maybe I meant PD-URAA instead of this one. -Nard the Bard 00:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Does that look OK?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 13:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think so, thanks. --Botev (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We need a non-USA media repository

When more and more Wikisource language subdomains have become aware of works considered Not-PD-US-URAA, Wikilivres hosted in Canada is the alternate website of six Wikisource language subdomains. Since 2008-11-04, Commons images may now be displayed at Canadian Wikilivres without duplicate uploading. Likewise, I would like to get more attention to prepare opening a media repository outside the USA so we can move affected media out of here without simply deleting them into non-public areas where they will be likely forgotten. Please see also wikilivres:Wikilivres:Community_Portal-en#Accept_Not-PD-US-URAA_images_here? for a discussion.--Jusjih (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically, there is no problem to host files on Wikilivres. The server can increase its workload by at least 3/4 times. The network limit is very far away. Yann (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Court rules that URAA is unconstitutional

See this blog entry by Klaus Graf and its links. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• This ruling only applies to the 10th circuit at the moment, and I'm sure SCOTUS will review it. Or, if they do not, we may have to wait another decade or so for another case in a different circuit to reach the SCOTUS. As it stands it's a bit early to begin changing our policies. -Nard the Bard 16:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

See rather this link: [1]. Yann (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed it is too early to change our policies. See e.g. Tyler Ochoa on Golan v. Holder for a more balanced analysis of the consequences of this decision. A few points:
  • This is a district court ruling in the 10th circuit. It's unlikely to be the end of the story.
  • It doesn't apply outside of the 10th circuit.
  • The U.S. are highly unlikely to refuse to implement responsibilities arising from their adherence to the Berne Convention (BC), and they're even more unlikely to retract from the BC.
  • Even the plaintiffs in this case admit that the BC does require some kind of copyright restoration for such works.
  • Golan v. Holder is about the specific case of reliance parties, i.e., parties who had been using works in the PD prior to 1996 and who continue to do so, relying on the work's (then) PD status. It is not, prima facie, about new uses of such restored works.
  • Even if this ruling should be upheld on appeal, Congress will have to modify 17 USC to still restore copyrights, but with broader protections of reliance parties.
• Ochoa points out these subtleties quite well. It will be interesting to see what happens next and how this issue will be resolved ultimately. For the time being, tagging potentially affected images with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} is still the right thing to do, IMO. Lupo 09:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on several points, and agree on another:

1. There is no reason why it would not apply in the whole USA, unless another ruling exists in another circuit, which it doesn't. Copyright is a federal issue, not a state issue.
2. The article you mention says: "The ruling demonstrates that Congress cannot restore copyrights willy-nilly; instead, it needs a substantial justification for doing so. That portion of the ruling is likely to survive appeal, making it less likely that Congress will attempt to revive long-dormant domestic copyrights, and more likely that Congress will limit any future restoration efforts to the minimum required by the Berne Convention."
3. You are right that there will be further development on this issue. However this ruling stands until then, and these developments could take years, and we should not preclude the possibility that this ruling would be held on appeal. Yann (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeing your arguments, I would like to say that:

1. Yann is right that US copyright is a federal issue, but based on w:List_of_copyright_case_law#United_States, "Supreme Court rulings are binding precedent across the United States; Circuit Court rulings are binding within a certain portion of it (the circuit in question); District Court rulings are not binding precedent, but may still be referred to by other courts."
2. Twin Books v. Walt Disney Co. by the 9th Circuit Court in 1996 considered certain non-US works in other than English "unpublished",[2] but without appeals known, even the US Copyright Office outside its jurisdiction ignores it.
3. The latest news about Golan v. Holder, once Golan v. Gonzales, is the violation of the US First Amendment by URAA by District Chief Judge Lewis T. Babcock of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in April 2009, after the Tenth Circuit remanded the case to him. Is there any appeal filed yet? When must an appeal be filed after Judge Babcock's ruling?
4. If Judge Babcock's ruling becomes final in any way, I consider amending the US Constitution the only viable way to restore lapsed non-US copyright while also overriding the First Amendment. Similarly, when the US Congress tried to ban flag desecration, the Supreme Court killed the law twice by 5-4 decision, so some Congress members want to amend the Constitution. However, amending the US Constitution is very hard, requiring supports by at least 290 of 435 House members (2/3), 67 of 100 Senators (2/3), and 38 of 50 states (3/4) through their legislative bodies.

After all, we should decide which way to go regarding these Not-PD-US-URAA files. If taking Judge Babcock's ruling is too early now, I would like to propose better technical cooperation between Commons and Canadian Wikilivres:. As Canadian Wikilivres allows directly displaying Commons files, subject to Canadian Copyright Act, and some Wikimedia wikis reply on files right here while disabling local uploading, I would like to suggest allowing directly displaying Canadian Wikilivres files subject to some general policies to be proposed:

1. Wikimedia wikis will explain the fair-use rationales in relevant articles while considering any countries where the project content is predominantly accessed, but not duplicate Wikilivres files. Once files have expired copyright at home, explaining the fair-use rationales in the USA should be very easy.
2. As Wikilivres:Wikilivres:Copyrights accepts copyrighted works with the author's authorization, any kind, including non-commercial and non-derivative licenses, I would like to suggest moving non-commercial and non-derivative works seen here to Wikilivres as well, but displaying them on Wikimedia wikis should be restricted to having very good fair-use rationales subject to local policies. Wikilivres:Image:Sea Green Singers Internationale Levellers Day Burford 20080517.ogg is an example of file transfer from Commons to Wikilivres when the sung lyric has commercial use restricted as incompatible with GFDL.
3. Bots should be developed to detect Wikilivres files displayed on Wikimedia wikis for copyright enforcement.
4. Wikimedia wikis will detect a file name for any local file first. If none, then Commons. If still none, then Wikilivres last.

I hope that we think of how to deal with so many Not-PD-US-URAA. An easy file transfer tool like http://toolserver.org/~magnus/commonshelper.php will be vital.--Jusjih (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• {{Editprotected}} Any mention of Golan v Holder is highly inappropriate. A district court decision is not precedent and is not binding anywhere outside the case it was made in. -Nard the Bard 05:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I have undone Jusjih's change. In fact, as I've explained above, the Golan v. Holder ruling by the district court has only very limited effect on the URAA as a whole and on us in particular. It mainly has an effect for reliance parties, which we're not. Lupo 10:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Your simple rollback looks too persuasive, excessive, and counter-productive while Judge Babcock of the US District Court for the District of Colorado ruled on April 3, 2009 in the conclusion of Golan v. Holder: "Congress has a legitimate interest in complying with the terms of the Berne Convention. The Berne Convention, however, affords each member nation discretion to restore the copyrights of foreign authors in a manner consistent with that member nation’s own body of copyright law. In the United States, that body of law includes the bedrock principle that works in the public domain remain in the public domain. ......" The 2007 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure says in Rule 3(a)(2) that late appeals are not automatically void, but courts have discretion to accept or dismiss them. Rule 4(a)(1) asks appeals to be filed in 30 days, but 60 days is involving the USA or its officer or agency. Without Judge Babcock's conclusion that works in the public domain remain in the public domain, all files tagged this Not-PD-US-URAA should have been gone even earlier. Lupo, I appreciate your extensive researches on copyright laws and regulations, but please be more respectful to others' edits in good faith and more patient as Golan v. Holder does not appear to be as "finalized" as Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.--Jusjih (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
      • The big problem with Golan v. Holder is that Judge Babcock found section 514 in violation of the First Amendement only regarding the rights of so-called reliance parties. The ruling does not invalidate the URAA, it just says that a certain aspect of it was not OK. In fact, Judge Babcock even hinted in his ruling at a solution: simply make the protection of reliance parties not time-limited. As such, this ruling doesn't change anything for us; as neither the WMF nor we editors are "reliance parties". Babcock's "once PD, always PD" phrase is persuading, but it must not be quoted selectively. It must be read in context. And from context, it's quite clear that it means "once a work is PD and someone uses it based on this PD status, that someone must be able to continue using the work as PD." It does not mean that the copyright cannot be restored, and it does not mean that other people could still claim the work was PD once the copyright was restored. Lupo 07:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikilink to w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights

{{editprotected}} Can you please add a wikilink to the above? It should then read the following (changes in red):

...on the URAA date ({{{2|{{{date|{{[[w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights|January 1, 1996 in most cases]]}}}}}}). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of doing this a bit more verbosely. It's important to be clear that the 1996 date doesn't apply in all cases. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

category

{{Edit request}} This is not a license tag. It should be recateorized into "licence-related tags" and probably "prolem tags". Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please replace everything between the noinclude tags at the bottom with {{Documentation}}. I've already created Template:Not-PD-US-URAA/doc. Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. – Adrignola talk 19:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

2047

{{Editprotected}} The bit about 2047 is incomplete and confusing (it only makes sense in the full context of the Hirtle chart, and is irrelevant in the context of 95 years). As such, I'm proposing a change to the template to word it better:

{| {{PD-Layout}}
| {{#if: {{{3|{{{unclear|}}}}}}|[[Image:PDmaybe-icon.svg|64px|Possibly copyrighted in the U.S.]]|[[Image:Red copyright.svg|64px|Copyrighted in the U.S.]]}}
| ''{{#if: {{{3|{{{unclear|}}}}}}|'''The{{#if: {{{5|{{{created|}}}}}}|| publication}} history of this work is unknown.''' {{#iferror: {{#expr: {{{3|{{{unclear|}}}}}} > 0}}||It was created in '''{{{3|{{{unclear|}}}}}}'''.}} Unless it was '''{{{5|[[:en:publication|published]]}}}''' before {{{4|1923}}}, this|This}} work is '''not''' in the [[w:public domain|public domain]] '''in the United States''' because its copyright in the U.S. was restored by the [[:en:URAA|URAA]] as it was still copyrighted in its source country {{#if: {{{1|{{{country|}}}}}}|({{{1|{{{country|}}}}}})}} on the URAA date ({{{2|{{{date|January 1, 1996 in most cases but see [[w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights|Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights]] for details}}}}}}). In most cases, it is '''copyrighted in the U.S.''' until '''95 years''' after the year in which it was initially published (exceptions are works published after 1977; see [[Commons:Hirtle chart]]).''

'''''This is not a valid license on Commons; a valid license template must accompany this tag or this image will be deleted.''' Even when this tag is accompanied by a valid license template, we are currently trying to figure out [[Commons:Licensing#Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act|what to do with files like this one]]. If you are the copyright holder of this image, and do not wish to have it hosted on Commons, please contact our [[wmf:Designated agent|designated agent]] or [[COM:DEL|nominate the image for deletion]], explaining the situation.''
|}
<includeonly>
{{#if: {{{3|{{{unclear|}}}}}}
  |{{#iferror: {{#expr: {{{3|{{{unclear|}}}}}} > 0}}
     |[[Category:Works possibly copyrighted in the U.S.]]
     |{{#ifexpr: {{{3|{{{unclear|}}}}}} > 1909
        |[[Category:Works possibly copyrighted in the U.S. (1910 - 1922)]]
        |{{#ifexpr: {{{3|{{{unclear|}}}}}} > 1900
           |[[Category:Works possibly copyrighted in the U.S. (1901 - 1909)]]
           |{{#ifexpr: {{{3|{{{unclear|}}}}}} < 0
              |[[Category:Works copyrighted in the U.S.]]
              |[[Category:Works possibly copyrighted in the U.S. (19th century)]]
            }}
         }}
      }}
    }}
  |[[Category:Works copyrighted in the U.S.]]
}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>

Magog the Ogre ([[User talk:Magog the Ogre|talk]) 23:55, 30 December 2011‎ (UTC)

Am I ever going to get my edit request fulfilled? Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. (Checking it's not evil :-D) --PierreSelim (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

And  Done --PierreSelim (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

URAA affirmed by US Supreme Court - deletion request opened

In a 6-2 decision, SCOTUS affirmed the decision of the district court. The principle findings were: "1. Section 514 [of the URAA] does not exceed Congress’ authority under the Copyright Clause. [...] 2. The First Amendment does not inhibit the restoration authorized by §514." Supporters were Ginsburg, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Sotomeyer. Breyer and Alito dissented. Kagan recused. See SCOTUS Blog.

Regrettably, this means we can no longer defend our long-held position that the URAA is probably unconstitutional, and that our publication of files bearing the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} in contravention of that law is justified. As such, I have opened Commons:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA and invite your opinions there. Over 3000 files are affected. Please post your opinions regarding deletion there. Please don't post here to avoid dividing discussion, as I'm posting this notice in multiple locations. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Change template wording?

{{Edit request}} The second sentence of the second paragraph (currently "Even when this tag is accompanied by a valid license template, we are currently trying to figure out what to do with files like this one.") should be replaced with "A review of files is currently underway to verify that this template has been applied correctly. Files that are copyrighted in the US and that have not been released under a free license will be deleted." cmadler (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there some way for a template to see the date of the first upload or the date of the first revision to the file information page? It would be nice if the template could redirect to {{Copyvio}} if the file was uploaded after a particular date. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I support the change by cmadler, but without the last phrase "because Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content" because it's patronizing to people outside the United States whose free images can't be hosted here, and because it's only partially correct (the main reason being legal). Also, good luck with that; I made an edit request several months ago and no one has responded to it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough; I edited my above request to remove that phrase. cmadler (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I left a note about this at COM:AN. Maybe that will help. cmadler (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done for this request. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Please fix description

Description mentions Category:URAA review delete but the used category is (I think?) Category:URAA review publication pre-1923. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

{{Sofixit}}: Template:Not-PD-US-URAA/doc. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)