Template talk:PD-Ugglan

Adding Russian wording

This template is protected against any changes, so I guess only an admin can make changes thereto. I suggest adding Russian wording of the text of the template as follows:

Русский: Это изображение было впервые опубликовано в 1^-м или 2^-м издании энциклопедии Nordisk familjebok (1904–1926). Срок охраны авторских прав на эту книгу истёк, и это изображение перешло в общественное достояние.

Best regards, Leonid Dzhepko. --Л.П. Джепко (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

3rd edition in PD

Would someone consider adding text to this template, since the 3rd edition now should be in the public domain. The last volume of the 3rd edition was published in 1937. //Vogler (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Would a text like the below be best? Either that or (1876-1937) for the years.

English: This image was first published in the 1^st (1876–1899), 2^nd (1904–1926) or 3^rd (1923–1937) edition of Nordisk familjebok. The copyrights for that book have expired and this image is in the public domain.

/Lokal_Profil 21:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks great! I prefer the one with separate years for each edition. (I also think a "the" needs to be inserted.) /Vogler (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Should be done. French and German should be right unless there is a grammatical rule which I've missed. /Lokal_Profil 13:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please add a n to the word dritte in the german translation, it is missing. --Ittoqqortoormiit (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

USA template

There should also be a statement that you also need to add a licence template for the USA copyright status: {{PD-1923}} for works published before 1923, {{PD-1996}} for works published in 1923, 1924 and 1925 (and photos published at any point), and {{Copyvio}} for works (except photos) published in 1926 or later. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most of the material seems to come from the web version of this encyc, so it will be really hard to determine in which year individual photos/entries were published. This template doesn't even require a volume or page number. Good luck finding where something came from and in which year it was published. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The web version includes the year of publication, so you just click on the link to the web version in order to see the year. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Show me how you do that for File:ART-8.jpg for example (there are 7 more photos in that series, with lower numbers). I tried to locate the volume and its year of publication but was unsuccessful. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That one has insufficient source information as there is no way to verify that the image comes from Nordisk familjebok at all. You shouldn't have to read every page in all of the editions in order to verify the copyright information. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority (if not all) of the images tagged with this template comes from the 1st or second editions of the encyclopaedia and as such they are PD-1923. The third edition was only recently scanned and is therefore more unusual. The template doesn't require any more info but traditionally there is a link somewhere on the image page. To find the bad apples one could simply run over all of the image pages including this template but not a link starting with http://runeberg.org/nf since that is the main source of the images. AS for the images mention above I've added a source url. They were all published in 1911. As can be seen from the file history they were all uploaded in 2006, when the images were uploaded to sv.wikipedia and it was assumed that naming the original encyclopaedic entry where the image was found was enough to find the image afterwards. /Lokal_Profil 09:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ideally, it should be possible to verify that the image really does come from Nordisk familjebok, for example by specifying edition+volume+page number.

I've identified one image which appears to be from a 1926 volume; see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Svenska arméns uniform, 1923 års modell, Nordisk familjebok.jpg. The page Nordisk familjebok/Riksdagens bibliotek - Öyen has more images which all appear to be from 1926, but I suspect that the rest may meet either {{PD-Sweden-photo}} or {{PD-ineligible}}. In particular, see NJA 2004 s. 149. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

These should be specified in the source field but not necessarily in the template. Also a link to runeberg should be enough and possibly better since this allows you to straight away verify the source. I'll take the URAA discussion on the DR instead. /Lokal_Profil 17:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Svenska Dagbladets Årsbok

Could someone make a similar template for Svenska Dagbladets Årsbok? Project Runeberg has years 1923-1941 available here: http://runeberg.org/svda/ Suppafly (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

clarifying why images are in PD

I have changed EN text to:

This image was first published in the 1st (1876–1899), 2nd (1904–1926) or 3rd (1923–1937) edition of Nordisk familjebok. The copyrights for that book have expired and this image is in the public domain, because images had no named authors and the book was published more than 70 years ago.

Please translate to other languages. --Jarekt (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Images from 3rd edition

The text of the template indicates it covers images through the 3rd edition (through 1937), but I have two concerns regarding this:

1. I can't seem to find any source online that can be used to verify the origin of images claiming to be from that edition. It doesn't look like runeberg has it. Does anyone know of a way to verify these, short of obtaining a physical copy of the book?
2. I'm not clear on whether the 3rd edition images would qualify as PD in the United States. If 70 years from publication is the cutoff, then the 3rd edition images would not have been PD at the time Sweden joined the URAA (1 January 1996). Is there some other way these would qualify?

If anyone is interested in specifics, I've been asked to verify the status of File:Harold Laski 1936.JPG, which would presumably be from the 3rd edition based on the date. --RL0919 (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

70 years from publication is the rule in Sweden provided that the author is anonymous. I think that this template assumes that all authors is anonymous. If some author is named (in the encyclopædia or elsewhere), then that author's contributions are copyrighted for 70 years from the death of that person. Even if the copyright has expired in Sweden, it has not always expired in the United States if the work was first published after 1922.

The image you are referring to looks like a photo, so it would be covered by {{PD-Sweden-photo}}. At the time the encyclopædia was published, photos were only subject to a copyright term of 15 years in Sweden. This term was later extended in 1961, 1994 and 1996 to currently 50 years from creation for a simple photo or 70 years from the death of the author for a complex photo, but those extensions didn't restore the copyright to any simple photos which had already entered the public domain, if I've understood things correctly. Therefore, the file should be in the public domain in both Sweden and the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that does seem to resolve the question of whether it would be PD in the US. Any thoughts on how to verify the origin? --RL0919 (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you questioning whether the photo was included in Nordisk familjebok? It's an encyclopædia which is sorted alphabetically, so you would verify this by looking up the entry for Harold Laski and checking that the photo is there. I don't have a copy of the book, so I can't do this myself.

Are you questioning whether the book is the original publication, or whether the book obtained the photo from some older unidentified source? I don't know how to check that, and I don't know how the encyclopædia usually obtained photos. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The former primarily. Some other editions of the familjebok are available online, so it's easy to verify them. This edition doesn't seem to be online. For now it's probably enough to assume good faith by the uploader. I'm using the image in a featured article candidate on English Wikipedia, so I'm trying to be prepared for follow-up challenges that I might get. Having access to the source is usually the most helpful thing for that. --RL0919 (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)