Template talk:PD-Art

70 years

The period of "70 years after author's death" for the "two-dimensional work of art" seems to be valid worldwide. As to the PD status of the repdoruction/photograph/scan of that work, the template only mentioned US law. Mentioning only the US is misleading. It's like that in Germany, also, so I added that country. Since international copyright law is tricky, I think we could either:

• add more countries to the template, in case we are sure the PD status applies there
• state "public domain worldwide but in" and add countries where there is no agreement that such reproductions are also public domain (I'm not sure if those exist).

Any suggestions? --AndreasPraefcke 23:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At least Mexico has copyright lasts 100 years after the authors death. I changed Germany to EU, should be all 70 years. -guety 23:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think its a big mistake to make changes in the template without checking if it is correct for all the images where it is used. Sweden has similar laws as other EU countries and photographs, regardless of object, is protected for 50 years after publication. Yes, that includes photos of paintings from the 17th and 18th century. I have uploaded photos that are not public domain by Swedish law but public domain by US law. Hence, it is highly misleading to include more countries than United States in the template. Thuresson 22:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co.(24)

Possibly, the above Supreme Court ruling should also be mentioned - it ruled out "sweat of brow" as a basis of copyright. From [1]: The Supreme Court sounded the death knell for the sweat of the brow doctrine in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co.(24) In finding a white pages telephone directory to be uncopyrightable, the Court held that the sole basis for protection under U.S. copyright law is creative originality. Although this is not about images, it makes clear the creativity is the sole basis for copyright. See also en:Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 17:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

National Gallery claims copyright on photos of paintings- Ignore them?

See http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/home/terms.htm

The national gallery says they have copyright on photographs of paintings- including those paintings 500 years old.

Should I ignore such warnings and copy paintings into Commons anyway (That is, really old paintings- like 100 or more years old)?

Under UK law, the NG's photographic reproductions of out-of-copyright old pictures will be entitled to their own copyright provided that sufficient "skill and labour" went into the making of their reproductions to allow them to qualify as a new copyright works. Ultimately, that's a matter for the courts, but the skill and labour involved in taking a high-quality record photograph of the type listed on the website is certainly enough to qualify. The required level of effort is quite low. So, you should not ignore the copyright notice. On the other hand, it's only the National Gallery's own photographs that they can protect by copyright. If a photographer takes an independent photograph of an old master, any copyright in that photograph will reside with the photographer and could be released under a free licence in the normal way. --MichaelMaggs 13:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Related question- The PD-Art Text says: "This applies to reproductions created in the United States (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.), in Germany, and in many other countries. " Do we have a list of countries for which it does not apply? Is the UK one?

-Mak 02:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly why Bridgeman Art Libray v. Corel Corp is important: because it says that a work of art can only be copyrighted if it's original, and in this case reproductions of PD paintings are not. There is however, something as 'database rights', so you can't copy the complete National Gallery website on Commons because they have rights on the way the collection is assembled. Also, be careful not to upload any reproductions of threedimensional works of arts (e.g. sculpture) because those reproductions are copyrighted. Husky 09:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a cool case, yes. My question had to do with how broadly I may use it. If I extrapolate from the PD Art notice correctly, then Bridgeman v. Corel only covers reproductions made in the US. That implies we can't just slap PD-Art on anything that looks like a painting made over 100 years ago. It implies we need to verify that the repro was made in the US or Germany and document that fact. I am inclined to go with what Dues said and apply the precedent broadly. There is no sweat of brow in making these reproductions. Just for fun take an expensively produced art book to a museum and compare their repros to the original. If you studied art from such reproductions you will wonder if you really know anything at all about how prior artists used color. The reproductions are really quite awful. Most of the electronic ones I have seen on the net don't even bother with color correction.

I was just wondering though if the Bridgeman case was quite specific about where the reproduction was made, and whether it is recommended practice to apply the text rigidly or liberally as I am inclined to do...

As for sculptures- I have taken prolific photos and videos of statues every museum I went to in Europe while I was living there. One of these days I will be uploading them, but I have only spot uploaded some where there was requests for specific statues (gallery of some of them). -Mak 16:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright of originals vs. images

Some points as I (a non-lawyer) understand them. Please feel free to correct me if you actually know more about the law (and are not simply speculating) than I do:

• If you take a photograph of a piece of public domain art, then you own the copyright for the photograph as far as I understand. However, it is difficult (see the case referenced above) to defend such copyright.
• There's a weak claim to be made by the person who "arranged" the art (e.g. set up an exibit), and that claim gets stronger, the more of their work is visible in the photograph. This is especially key for three-dimensional work.
• Because this touches on case (common) law rather than strict interpretation of the letter of the laws and treaties that apply, it seems as if there is room to argue.
• Because of the above, Wikipedia would be very wise to at least note the source of every image that it uses. I notice that most of the commons and en art images that show up on the main page of en do not cite the photographer or originating site.

-Harmil 13:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Response: Point one - not if you live in the U.S. There is no copyright for this in the U.S. because there is no originality.

Point two: irrelevant if the photo includes only the painting. Images of three dimensional art does require originality to choose an angle to photograph from so it is copyrightable in the U.S. Rmhermen 19:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification needed

This template is problematic. The original artwork should fall under one of our other PD tags (such as {{PD-old}}), and then this template should state that the reproduction also is PD (in the U.S. because of Bridgeman vs. Corel). As a quick fix, I suggest that:

1. The "worldwide" claim should probably go.
2. For non-U.S. works:
   1. If the author or the original artwork is known, the image is considered PD only if he died more than 70 years ago.
   2. The publication date is only interesting if the original artwork is anonymous: PD only if really an anonymous work and published more than 70 years ago.
3. For U.S. works:
   1. If the work was published, it's PD if published pre-1923 or provably fits {{PD-US-not renewed}}.
   2. Unpublished works: PD if author (if known) died more than 70 years ago, or, if the work is anonymous, the artwork was created more than 120 years ago.

(Yes, this is only a first approximation...) Lupo 11:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If this is true, we're in big trouble. Pablo Picasso and Marc Chagall would have to go, the Russian avant-gardists like Natalya Goncharova, Mikhail Larionov, Alexandre Benois and Pavel Filonov as well, to name but a few. Is there really no appropriate license for these major works of art? Errabee 16:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. And yes, we have a problem. Chagall is on my to-do-list to nominate for deletion. The paintings in Category:Pablo Picasso need to go, too, unless we can show that they were first published before 1923 in the U.S. (quite unlikely). Note that creation or even exhibition of a painting is not publication! (See e.g. en:WP:PD#Publication.) The images at the article Pablo Picasso are fine; there are no paintings of his, only a few photos of a sculpture published under freedom of panorama. The first three of the Russian painters you mentioned are already up for deletion. Filonov is fine, though, as he died 1941. As I said, the above is only a first approximation. Basically the depicted work itself must fall under one of our other PD tags, and Filonov is a prime example for {{PD-Russia}}. He died in 1941, and assuming his works were published in his lifetime, they are in the public domain in Russia (pre-1954), in the U.S. (pre-1942), and I think also in the EU (rule of the shorter term, i.e. pre-1954). Lupo 08:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the template states: The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain worldwide due to the date of death of its author, or due to its date of publication. So, the date of the author's death is not the only factor taken into consideration, but also the date of publication. Or do I miss something? Errabee 16:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm after. The wording of this template is highly misleading and should be fixed. The date of publication is only a factor for U.S. works and non-U.S. anonymous works. See also (for the U.S. rules) Peter Hirtle's chart. Lupo 08:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fred, for the pretty good reformulation. That covers at least the common cases. Lupo 12:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As a USian, I'm also confused by the template's implication that post-1923 works are PD in the U.S. if they were published outside the U.S., and the author has been dead for a certain amount of time. As far as I know, that's incorrect under US law. For example, my understanding is that this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Corinth_Ecce_homo.jpg image is still under copyright in the U.S. (if its copyright was renewed in 1953).--24.52.254.62 05:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If it was registered in the U.S. (which seems somewhat unlikely), then yes, it might still be copyrighted there. If it was not registered in the U.S., it is PD in the U.S., too, because it was no longer copyrighted in its country of origin, which appears to be the Netherlands, on January 1, 1996, the date the URAA became effective in the U.S. (The painter died 1925, so the work was copyrighted in the Netherlands until December 31, 1995.) Common practice on the commons is to ignore the possibility of non-U.S. works where the author has died more than 70 years ago being copyrighted in the U.S. all the same. It's not 100% correct, but it's the current consensus here. Lupo 12:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:PD-Art in french

Message copied from User talk:Thuresson :

Hi,

I don't understand why did you delete the french translation. 
Have you created a french version to use instead ?

--Fabos 13:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Because we would have to have 10 languages in every template - that would make them totally unusable. Ideally, Templates should be localizable in the same way system messages are - users would then see it in their "interface language". But we don't have that feature. Having separate templates would make things worse - I don't want to have to clean up images that contain license tags in russion, japanese, etc.

I would like to propose a workaround: Templates should be english (which is the "main language" of the commons - it's sad that we need a main language, but we still do). At the bottom, there should then be links to translations - i.e. we would have Template:PD-Art/fr, Template:PD-Art/de, Template:PD-Art/es, etc, and small links to those from Template:PD-Art. That way, people who don't speak english can get a translated text, but the template does not get too big. Also, the naming scheme would allow an easy transition to a true multilingual template system, if we should get that at some point.

I'll move the franch translation to Template:PD-Art/fr and link to it. Please don't use Template:PD-Art/fr directly as a template, though. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 14:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Could we please add the interwiki links?

[[en:PD-Art]], [[mk:Шаблон:Јд-уметност]], [[vi:Tiêu bản:PD-art]], [[th:แม่แบบ:PD-art]] Thanks. Evrik (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

can someone with access fix this grammar please:

"(if it is was published outside of the U.S. and the author has been dead for over 70 years)"

"is was"... Janechii 10:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be nice. ACupOfCoffee 18:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Germany and the Rule of the Shorter Term

The reference to Germany in the current form is misleading: If the work of art was published in the US before 1923, reproductions of it are not at all automatically PD in Germany, due to a bilateral contract. I suggest to re-word the template as follows:

The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain due one of the following reasons: it was first published outside the U. S. and its author has been dead for over 70 years. This applies in the U. S., the countries of the European Union and many other countries. Therefore, this photographical reproduction is also in the public domain, at least in the United States and in Germany, but also in many other countries. it was first published in the U. S. and before 1923. This applies in the U. S. and many other states, but not in Canada, China except Macao, Germany, Switzerland and other countries that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works. Therefore, this photographical reproduction is also in the public domain in the United States and in many other countries, but not in Canada, China except Macao, Germany and Switzerland and other countries with individual treaties with the U. S. To uploader: Please provide necessary copyright information about the artwork itself.

Comments? --Wikipeder 13:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, but lets just wait a few more days, in case someone else wants to comment. / Fred Chess 17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's still wrong. We have the following cases:

• Countries where the copyright term for the work expires X years after the author's death. I'll call countries that generally apply this principle the "X years p.m.a." countries. The U.S. is not such a country. In the U.S., this rule applies only to post-1977 works, but that is irrelevant for us, because X = 70 for such works in the U.S. and no author of any post-1977 work can have died more than 70 years ago. (With one little exception concerning unpublished works mentioned below).
  • Known author who died more than 70 years ago: the work is PD in all "X years p.m.a." countries where X <= 70. The work is not PD in the U.S., unless one of the U.S. rules below also applies.
  • Unknown author, anonymous work, pseudonymous work (author never became known): is PD in "X years p.m.a." countries if it was published more than X years ago, or, if unpublished, was created more than X years ago. Commons accepts such works only if X >= 70.
• U.S. rules:
  • U.S. works. Any U.S. work that is PD in the U.S. is also PD elsewhere if either the work also satisfies the rules of the other country (see above for "X years p.m.a." countries), or the other country does apply the rule of the shorter term to U.S. works, which, as is rightly pointed out, is not the case in several (many?) countries.
    • Published before 1923: PD in the U.S.
    • Published 1923 - 1977: PD in the U.S. only if {{PD-US-not renewed}} provably applies.
    • Unpublished works:
      • Any: if not published while still copyrighted under the original term, but then published 1978 to 2002 (inclusive): Copyrighted in the U.S. until at least the end of 2047! Even if the author is known and died more than 70 years ago :-(
      • Otherwise, if the author and his death year are known: "70 years p.m.a." applies in the U.S.
      • Otherwise: Author unknown, death year of author unknown, anonymous or pseudonymous work, work for hire: PD in the U.S. if created more than 120 years ago.
  • Non-U.S. works:
    • Anything published anywhere before 1909 is PD in the U.S.
    • Non-U.S. works first published outside of the U.S. 1909-1922 without © notice and in a language other than English and still copyrighted in their source country on the URAA date for that country may still be copyrighted in the U.S.: they are treated as "unpublished" works in the U.S.
    • Otherwise, a foreign work is PD in the U.S. if it satisfies the rules for U.S. works.
    • Non-U.S. works are also PD in the U.S. if they were not copyrighted in their source country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries), and were not copyrighted in the U.S. before that date (e.g. by having been published without © notice before 1989 and not registered in the U.S.).

The main point here is that the U.S. does not generally apply "70 years p.m.a." to foreign works! The U.S. applies basically the U.S. rules to foreign works. Therefore, the first point mentioned in the template is wrong. A work may be PD in its non-U.S. source country under the 70 years p.m.a. but still be copyrighted in the U.S. It's a mess, and if we want to adhere to our rule that the work must be PD in its source country and in the U.S., it doesn't exactly get any easier... Lupo 12:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is a mess. What about this:

The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain due one of the following reasons: it was first published before 1909 and its author has been dead for over 70 years. This applies in the U. S., the countries of the European Union and many other countries. Therefore, this photographical reproduction is also in the public domain, at least in the United States and in Germany, but also in many other countries. it was first published outside the U. S. and its author died before January 1, 1926 (70 years before the URAA date in its source country). This applies in the U. S., the countries of the European Union and many other countries. Therefore, this photographical reproduction is also in the public domain, at least in the United States and in Germany, but also in many other countries. it was first published in the U. S. and before 1923. This applies in the U. S. and many other states, but not in Canada, China except Macao, Germany, Switzerland and other countries that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works. Therefore, this photographical reproduction is also in the public domain in the United States and in many other countries, but not in Canada, China except Macao, Germany and Switzerland and other countries with individual treaties with the U. S. To uploader: Please provide necessary copyright information about the artwork itself.

The template then wouldn't cover the small group of non-US images of authors who died after 1925 but still more than 70 years ago and that fulfill the US rules at the same time, but at least users can rely on what the tag says.

(Cases of PD status exclusive to the US should not be dealt with with this template, I suppose) --Wikipeder 14:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we make two templates: one 'simple' one for all paintings where the author is dead for more than 100 years (which can apply to the great majority of all PD-Art paintings) and this template for the smaller group of pictures that apply to more special conditions (e.g. PD in the USA, but not in Germany) Husky 20:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, Wikipeder's latest version goes against the spirit of template, which is to say that the image in question is PD because it is an exact reproduction of a public domain work. It might even be better to just replace the current template text the text

"This 2D work of art is an exact reproduction of a work that is in the public domain. The reproduction is therefore also in the public domain. This applies to reproductions created in the United States (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.), in Germany, and in many other countries."

Yes, I think it would be a better text.

Fred Chess 21:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point. But how do users get out why the original is supposed to be PD in the first place? Should this tag always be complemented by, e. g. {{PD-old}}?

We should write this down in the template then: "Always give the reason why the original is in the public domain" or something like this. --Wikipeder 22:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, Fred's essentially right. What we'd really need is a template saying that "this image is a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art and thus not copyrightable in itself in the U.S. as per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. In many other countries, including Germany, exact 2D reproductions of 2D originals are also not copyrightable. The original two-dimensional work depicted is in the public domain as per <insert the applicable other PD tag here>. Because the original is in the public domain, so is this image." We could even rephrase this to apply to freely licensed base works (e.g. if the depicted 2D work was under CC-BY)... I'm sure one of our template wizards could rework this template to take an optional parameter (defaulting to PD-old) such that the tag for the base work would be included automatically. Then we'd have a clear separation of statements about the copyright status of the image and of the underlying artwork. Of course, we just have moved the problem of what works are PD (70 years p.m.a. vs. U.S.-rules) to {{PD-Old}}. Lupo 12:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now that I think of it, {{PD-art}} should probably best be transformed into something like {{Reproduction}}. We could then use it to tag any reproductions of 2D originals, not only PD paintings. Where do we find the template wizards? --Wikipeder 14:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fred Chess and Lupo, it offers simple and universal information. How about template like this:

This image is a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art and thus not copyrightable in itself in the U.S. as per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.). In many other countries, including Germany, exact the two-dimensional reproductions of the two-dimensional originals are also not copyrightable. The original two-dimensional work is a free content because: This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer. You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years: Mexico has 100 years, Jamaica has 95 years, Colombia has 80 years, and Guatemala and Samoa have 75 years. This image may not be in the public domain in these countries, which moreover do not implement the rule of the shorter term. Honduras has a general copyright term of 75 years, but it does implement the rule of the shorter term. Copyright may extend on works created by French who died for France in World War II (more information), Russians who served in the Eastern Front of World War II (known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia) and posthumously rehabilitated victims of Soviet repressions (more information). This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/PDMCreative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0falsefalse Therefore, this reproduction is also available in the same condition of the original work.

I'm not good at English, its text need to be corrected. See also User:Kareha/PD-Art for more samples. --Kareha 19:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is great! I tweaked the wording a little; it may need more tweaking. Maybe start with the coypright on the original, and then say that the reproduction is subject to the same conditions because of Bridgeman v. Corel. But that's just a detail. I suggest replacing {{PD-Art}} by User:Kareha/PD-Art. Now, what do we do with {{PD-Old}}? It still says that 70 years p.m.a. applied in the U.S. ... Lupo 07:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor revision

I suggest to revise this template by replacing it with User:Kareha/PD-Art again. What I intend are as follows:

1. Tweaked phrasing after Lupo's suggestion (see above) as I agree with him. This is better way to explain.
2. Removed Japanese text. They are no need here.
3. Added information and links to background pages in <noinclude> way.

--Kareha 03:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorting out {{PD-Art}}

Anyone interested in helping to sort out the confusing mess that is the PD-Art template should drop over to User talk:Kareha/PD-Art where a discussion about how best to improve this template is just getting started. We're intending to work away from the main page as this is a heavily-used template and repeated modifications to it, as we're going along, would over-stress the server. --MichaelMaggs 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Finished. Template updated. --MichaelMaggs 16:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Now the templates puts the paintings in a (non-existing) category Category:PD-Art (PD-old). Bug or feature? --AndreasPraefcke 08:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bug. Now fixed. --MichaelMaggs 14:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I coded it to categorize {{PD-Art}} by the including license tags. Mostly they are categorized in Category:PD-Art (PD-old), some are in Category:PD-Art (PD-US), Category:PD-Art (PD-ineligible) and so on.--Kareha 19:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. One or two of the categories didn't exist but I've created them now. --MichaelMaggs 19:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Bridgeman

Per discussion with w:User:Mikegodwin, the wording has been changed slightly. -- Avi 16:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you point to the actual discussion, please? I'd be interested in his reasoning. Surely by the way he didn't say that 'American' is better than 'US'? 'American' can include South America :) --MichaelMaggs 18:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Still confusing

I find this template to be problematic because of the apparent contradiction in the 70 year vs. 100 year phrasing under U.S. law. This template's explicit statement that copyright including the U.S. expires "life of the author plus 70 years" is at variance with the PD-Art template at en:Wikipedia, which states that U.S. copyright is "life of the author plus 100 years". Which is it?

For example, I am pondering whether to upload here my photo of an oil painting made in 1890 by Heinrich Hofman (1824–1911). Under the 100-year rule, the painting will not become PD until 2011, i.e., 100 years after the painter's 1911 death, and thus cannot be uploaded at en-Wikipedia using the PD-Art tag. But it may be uploaded here at Commons as PD using this template. This anomoly begs the question, may the painting in this example be uploaded as an out-of-copyright PD artwork, or not? In other words, has copyright expired in U.S. for 2D artworks by artists who died later than 1908 but before 1938? JGHowes 06:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The painting should be PD in the U.S. because it was made well before 1923. Germany uses PD-old-70. The reason en wiki says 100 is not that that's law in the U.S. (it isn't) but because of other countries. Superm401 - Talk 00:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

PD-Art-100?

Is there any reason not to create such a template? Image:BurlingtonBayByElizabethSimcoe.jpg for instance, is a scan of a piece of art by a lady dead over 150 years. Should we not include that it's good for places with life +100 for our Mexican friends? WilyD 15:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Use {{PD-art|PD-old-100}}. Superm401 - Talk 00:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Confusing layout

The layout of this template is confusing. The colors and the use of a box draw the eye strongly inside the box, where the wording starts with "This image (or other media file)" as if it was the complete description. I was led to this box by the presence of a featured article whose lead image is being challenged because PD-Art does not apply in the UK, and was quite stumped for a few minutes because I read the text inside the box and it (i.e. that part) does apply in the UK, being an EU country.

I see three possible fixes.

1. The lazy choice would be to boldface the words "the original image" in the leading text and "this photograph" in the trailing text, but I don't think that would be much of an improvement.
2. The wording inside the box could be changed to say "the image", or better yet "the original image" or some such words instead of "this image (or other media file)". I presume that the existing wording comes from a separate PD template, but that template could be given a parameter.

   (With this correction made, the box could also be removed. Perhaps simple indentation would suffice to make it clear which part of the text the notes about applicability pertain to.)

3. The order of the contents could be changed to start with what is now the trailing text, about the US rule on photos of PD art, and follow it with the rest, about why the original is PD.
4. Suggestions 2 and 3 might both be applied. Really I think that would be best.

The same sort of suggestions may also apply to other templates where something is PD by reason of being uncreatively derivative of a PD work. I haven't looked to see if there are others.

--207.176.159.90 00:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

PD-Art on Wikipedia

Well, guess what, I managed to get the PD-Art template on the English Wikipedia to be more like ours, with the whole "you can change the licence inside it" thing now. That should help a bit. ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Redesign

Is there a way of redesigning this templates so that it still displays a proper license when translated? Currently most of the translations say PD-old whether that is the license specified or not. /Lokal_Profil 22:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

bug fixed in fr subpage

Don't forget to put the <noinclude> warning message...</noinclude> blocks.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:PD-Art/fr&diff=17990192&oldid=12670236

I fixed the fr template, now there might be other template parts to fix. Esby (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

When I change templates to use autotranslate I normally change all language subpages too so they use the layout template. In this case I stopped cause I realized that the translations are _completely_ out of sync with the English default. For foreign languages I cannot judge whether translations are outdated, plain wrong or just the same as the English version put in other words. Therefore I left them as they were. But I didn't think of the translation tag templates.

Actually all of the translations need review whether they are still valid. Do you have any idea how to handle this? --Slomox (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

How about categorizing them as 'needing translation check/review', and remove the category once someone talking the given language has checked the given template? Esby (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the other lang for the no include bug. Some pages were not protected, there was a minor ip vandalism in the arabian template. Esby (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

another potential bug?

I just fixed a bug in PD-Art template redirecting users to PD-old translation. This was located in PD-Art/layout.

Now I see that line in PD-Art

{{PD-Art/{{Fallback|PD-Art}}|1={{{1|}}}}}<includeonly>{{{category|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|File|[[Category:PD-Art ({{{1|PD-old}}})]]}}}}}

What is this 1|PD-old?

Is this a remnant of PD-Old translation?

should it be replaced by PD-Art?

Esby (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood the template. PD-Art is no licence of its own. It's just a wrapper to say "this is a free reproduction of a work that is free cause of {{{1}}}". You have to specify the licence of the original work in the first parameter. If no first parameter is provided, PD-old is the default. So the template is all right. --Slomox (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Three-dimensional images

Someone made a request on PD-Art on the English Wikipedia to add to the template a condition for situations where something is "three-dimensional and the reproduction does nothing more than accurately convey the underlying image." There seems to now be possible legal basis that it could apply in a way to 3D art in the United States. Your thoughts? ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I am going to study the cases cited. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The request was to change the wording of the PD-Art tag on the English Wikipedia as follows:

This image is in the public domain because under United States copyright law, originality of expression is necessary for copyright protection, and a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright two-dimensional work may not be protected under American copyright law, especially if the out-of-copyright work is two-dimensional, but also if it is three-dimensional and the reproduction does nothing more than accurately convey the underlying image.

The cases relied on to support the request were Meshwerks v. Toyota Motor Sales, (10th Cir. 2008); Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 323 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2003); Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel, 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); ATC Distr. Group v. Whatever it Takes, 402 F. 3d 700 (6th Cir. 2005).

There are four cases listed. Bridgeman is the basis for the existing wording of the PD-Art tag, and addresses 2D to 2D slavish copying only. Meshworks related to 3D to 3D slavish copying, where a computer wire-frame model of a car was held to be insufficiently original for copyright protection as it amounted merely to a raw copy within a computer of the original car with no scope for individual expression. ATC held that a drawing of a mechanical part directly copied from a photograph in a competitor's catalog could not in itself attract any new copyright; it was not part of the court's role in that case to decide whether the photograph in the competitor's catalog itself had copyright or not. In Ets-Hokin it was indeed held that a particular photo of a vodka bottle attracted no copyright, but that case is notoriously difficult to extract any clear principle from - the ratio is very confused - and it does not in itelf support broadening the PD-Art tag in the way suggested.

The quotation that forms the basis of the proposed PD-Art new wording was approved in Meshwerks in the conxtext of slavish copying of an image, and immediately follows on from a reliance on the 2D to 2D slavish copying that ocurred in Brigeman and in ATC (both 2D image cases). The court was using the quote to firmly establish the 2D to 2D slavish copying rule, and from there it generalized to denying copyright protection for slavish 3D to 3D slavish copying. The court was not suggesting that for example a photograph of a sculpure would be copyright-free (3D to 2D). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

On that basis I have relucantly opposed the change on Wikipedia and would for the same reasons oppose any change here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Swedish text misspelled

The Swedish text for the template reads "Detta foto är upphovsrättsskydat i Sverige, om det har inte tagits före 1969". The words "har inte" have been reversed, as this is a subordinate clause. It should read "Detta foto är upphovsrättsskydat i Sverige, om det inte har tagits före 1969". --Jonund (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Corrected. /Lokal_Profil 15:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Invalid parameter for PD-1923?

Can someone investigate why {{PD-Art|PD-1923}} yields a red "Invalid parameter." (see File:Capture-of-Blackbeard.jpg) but handles other PD reasons well? PD-1923 has a valid, if previously empty, Category:PD-Art (PD-1923). Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:PossiblyPD

Should we merge these two? They're pretty much the same (at least to us), the only difference is one allows the photographer to add a free license in case the reuser is in a country where the work may have a new copyright. So we could add something like {{PD-ineligible}} has. Maybe "In case this photograph would pass the threshold of originality, the copyright holder allows the use of this image in those jurisdictions with the following conditions: {{{license}}}". The way PD-Art currently is, I think there is too much emphasis on if it's okay for Commons, when we should make our license tags with emphasis on the reuser. Thoughts? (Personally, I would like it if users just say it's PD in whatever way your government wants it to be (PD-old, PD-self, or copyrighted free use), but it is common for some reason to add restrictions for certain countries.) Rocket000 (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Union européenne

The french for European Union is written "Union européenne" and not "Union Européenne". Treehill ^{(fr) Treehill} 18:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Эlcobbola _talk 20:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Correction of false statement on this template

This template currently includes the wording "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that..." which erroneously implies that the Wikimedia Foundation has made an official statement on the subject beyond the licencing policy resolution passed March 2007. The wording in question relates to a comment^diff on a talk page by Erik Möller which makes clear that WMF position had not changed and didn't need to change. Regardless of Erik's paramount expertese in the subject and the fact that his comments greatly helped Commons make a decision, and maybe even some editors to read the WMF resolution, it is ridiculous to suggest that the Wikimedia Foundation makes official statements on talk pages. Erik's profile page includes this statement:

Unless otherwise stated, any edit to Wikimedia projects by me is an act of a regular member of the community and administrator, not a legal or official action of the Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation.

I suggest therefore that the comment should be replaced with wording to the effect that Commons decided to change its official policy in July 2008. That indeed was the action which is worthy of note. 9carney (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case I agree that the wording should be corrected. --Jarekt (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Erik's disclaimer says "unless otherwise stated". I'm pretty sure a statement by the WMF's Deputy Director beginning by "WMF's position has always been that...", and signed with his real name, is an official statement. guillom 21:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

On the Wikimedia blog and on the Foundation-l listserver Erik signs his posts "Erik Moeller, Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation". The fact that his signature on the mentioned talk page posting is not followed by the title of any office he holds with the WMF confirms to me that that posting is as his disclaimer says "an act of a regular member of the community and administrator, not a legal or official action of the Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation." However the very fact that two editors don't agree whether that disclaimer does or does not apply in this case suggests that perhaps it needs to be rewritten in terms which no one can misunderstand.

Erik's comment on that talkpage has been misinterpreted and misrepresented.

Until January 2010 the opening paragraph of Commons:Policy on photographs of old pictures contained the line:

"The tag can be used on any such photograph regardless of the source country, following an official statement of the position taken by the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation in July 2008."

This seems to have led some to incorrectly believe that the WMF board has discussed the EN:National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts and issued a statement on the subject.

Some editors even seem to mistakenly believe that the WMF has even declared that the images in question are public domain in their county of origin.

Some confusion may have arisen due to the use of the term "public domain" without any qualification as to which legal juristiction is being referred to. My assumption is that, as the WMF is a organized under US law, the US law interpretation of "public domain" should apply unless othewise specified.

My understanding of the facts:

WMF board policy, expressed in Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy (March 2007), only requires improperly licenced content to be deleted. Per Erik's post, the WMF's policy did not change, nor did it need to change to accommodate the public domain content in question.

There was no WMF board level statement made on this issue, none was needed.

There has been no official statement that the content in question is public domain in its country of origin.

Eric's participation in a discussion about Wikimedia Commons policy was an act of a regular member of the community and administrator, not a legal or official action of the Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation.

As a result of that discussion, and the following straw poll, the Wikimedia Commons community agreed to change their official policy to ignore the country of origin of the content in question.

This is why I believe that the final statement on the template should give the Commons community due credit for amending their own official policy, in keeping with Wikipedia philosophy, and not to imply that it was the WMF which intervened to change either Commons policy or their own. 9carney (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

My comment was written with my WMF hat firmly in place (as is this one), hence the explicit reference to WMF's position and the real name signature. WMF's position on this issue has been clear for a long time (through various statements in a number of different places over the years). You can also review the longer statement published in the Wikimedia blog following the NPG incident.--Eloquence (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Clearly guillom got the interpretation right and I got it wrong. Thanks. 9carney (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Template not really working in some cases

Hi. I uploaded the cover I found in this Flickr page, which is PD because it was published in the US in 1917 (hence prior to 1923). Based on this discussion in the Village Pump, I concluded that this tag was to be used, but it does not really work, as it says that it "applies to Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years", which is a bit limitative and does not refer to a file that is PD for another reason. Anyway, I ended up putting {{PD-Art}} and {{PD-US}} on File:Princess of Mars large.jpg, but I think this template should be updated. Asavaa (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You should use {{PD-Art|PD-US}} instead. Please see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Usage examples. Thank you--Trixt (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Stupid me, it's mentionned in Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Many thanks, and sorry for the useless question. Asavaa (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Problems with translations

If you do PD-Art with a nondefault parameter, like say (for argument's sake) {{PD-Art|PD-Canada}}, and then click on one of the "lang" translation links, the template in the middle reverts to PD-old-70. I'm encountering the same problem in a template I'm working on. Is there any way to fix this? Thanks. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Rebuilding this template

Hi everyone, I think two things need to be done for this template:

1. Move translations to translatewiki.net
2. Add a backup parameter for a license (for countries where pd-art probably doesn't work)

Anyone wants to help design this? {{PD-Art/sandbox}} seems a suitable location to me. Multichill (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Ok, I created the following messages for the texts:

• MediaWiki:Wm-license-pd-art-text
• MediaWiki:Wm-license-pd-art-explanation
• MediaWiki:Wm-license-pd-art-be-aware
• MediaWiki:Wm-license-pd-art-digital-reproduction-license
• MediaWiki:Wm-license-pd-art-invalid-parameter

I used this messages at {{PD-Art/sandbox}}. It takes three parameters:

• 1 = the PD-old license
• 2 = the fallback license
• attribution = to pass on attribution to the fallback license

Some example cases:

{{PD-Art/sandbox}} gives:

This is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason: This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer. You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years: Mexico has 100 years, Jamaica has 95 years, Colombia has 80 years, and Guatemala and Samoa have 75 years. This image may not be in the public domain in these countries, which moreover do not implement the rule of the shorter term. Honduras has a general copyright term of 75 years, but it does implement the rule of the shorter term. Copyright may extend on works created by French who died for France in World War II (more information), Russians who served in the Eastern Front of World War II (known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia) and posthumously rehabilitated victims of Soviet repressions (more information). This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/PDMCreative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0falsefalse The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain". For details, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain. Please be aware that depending on local laws, re-use of this content may be prohibited or restricted in your jurisdiction. See Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs.

{{PD-Art/sandbox|PD-old-100}} gives:

This is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason: This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or fewer. You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/PDMCreative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0falsefalse The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain". For details, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain. Please be aware that depending on local laws, re-use of this content may be prohibited or restricted in your jurisdiction. See Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs.

{{PD-Art/sandbox|PD-old-100|cc-by-sa-3.0-nl}} gives:

This is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason: This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or fewer. You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/PDMCreative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0falsefalse The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain". For details, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain. Please be aware that depending on local laws, re-use of this content may be prohibited or restricted in your jurisdiction. See Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs. In that case this digital reproduction has been released under the following license:

{{PD-Art/sandbox|PD-old-100|cc-by-sa-3.0-nl|attribution=multichill}} gives:

This is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason: This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or fewer. You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/PDMCreative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0falsefalse The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain". For details, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain. Please be aware that depending on local laws, re-use of this content may be prohibited or restricted in your jurisdiction. See Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs. In that case this digital reproduction has been released under the following license:

So, what do you think? Did I forget something? Are the texts ok? Multichill (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need to say "and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain" when such claim might not be being made? Yes, I agree this is the stated position of the WMF and we know that Commons falls in line with that, but the license is clear enough without repeating this as a mantra on every image and the link to the Commons policy is sufficient. I'd would prefer to make my own version without this explanatory text rather than using it anywhere near, say, a GLAM partner mass upload while it appears so pointy. Remember that the institution might just have applied what they thought was the least controversial free license available on Flickr (or have arranged the 'no known copyright' license with Flickr) and we might be clarifying the image context by applying this license rather than wanting to tell them off for theoretically doing it not as well as they could have. --Fæ (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fae. We don't need to be that "rude" and the phrase without that is good enough. Béria Lima ^msg 10:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the current text. Is not carved in stone. If we want a better one, this is the time to change it. So please suggest new texts :-) Multichill (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

PD-scan

Up to now, I always used PD-art, but just now I have discovered Template:PD-scan which more or less has the same meaning as the present one. Which is the difference and in which cases is the one or the other preferred? --Bjs (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

PD-art is mostly for 2D artworks which are PD-old and we are trying to say that photographing them does not give any new copyrights. PD-scan is similar but is mostly meant for images scanned from PD-old books, and we are trying to say that scanning them does not give the scanner any new copyrights. --Jarekt (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. So using PD-art was correct in most cases I did use this template. However, if I scan an old 2D artwork (e.g. a copper engraving) from a recent book, should I use PD-art, PD-scan or both? --Bjs (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If it is your scan than use PD-old and in the source mention that it is your scan and from where. PD-art and PD-scan are meant for cases when someone else does the digitization and might want to claim copyright over it.--Jarekt (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Bjs (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Additional parameter

I think it would be useful to add a second optional parameter to embed things like {{PD-old-auto}} or {{PD/1923}} that require an input of their own. So PD-Art could be used with |1=PD-old-auto |2=1899. De728631 (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Jarek pointed out this topic to me. Some time ago I set up Template:PD-Art/sandbox to do two things:

• Move translations to translatewiki (like most heavy usage templates)
• To be able to provide a fallback. For example {{PD-Art/sandbox|PD-old-100|cc-by-sa-3.0-nl}} will give

This is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason: This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or fewer. You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/PDMCreative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0falsefalse The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain". For details, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain. Please be aware that depending on local laws, re-use of this content may be prohibited or restricted in your jurisdiction. See Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs. In that case this digital reproduction has been released under the following license:

Passing along the date of death is probably useful too, but to not make it too confusing we should probably make all parameters except the first named:

• 1 optional license template
• deathyear = the year the author of the artwork died
• license = the fallback license
• attribution = attribution for the fallback license

We could of course add some template trickery so that if deathyear is set the template will figure out the right template to show. Multichill (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of named variables, better. It is simpler codding and simpler to explain. But maybe alternative name of parameter 1 should be license1 and for the 2nd license license2. --Jarekt (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Being in the public domain is not a license. Multichill (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you lost me, I am not sure what you are objecting to. I also agree with your statement, in legal sense, but not sure how it relates to the discussion. I was also thinking that if we are going to use deathyear, than we should add it as an alternative name to all the PD license tags that use it (ex. {{PD-old-auto}} and {{PD/1923}}). That way if some writes new PD template where {{{1}}} is not year of death than we are not going to get some strange results. --Jarekt (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea is very good to spend this template some parameters. I found this discussion because I wanted to use this template with the {{PD-old-auto}} template. Who is able to edit this page und will change this template? I'm not able to do this because the page is protected. --Christian1985 (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Could this indeed be done? I would welcome that very much. I bet {{PD-old-auto-1923}} will become very common with the URAA decision, so it would be great to combine it with PD-Art! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed for myself: I created {{PD-art-auto-1923}} as the PD-Art version of {{PD-old-auto-1923}} and {{PD-art/1923}} for {{PD/1923}}. As for Christian1985, {{PD-art-auto}} already exists! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#template:PD-Art

Please see Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#template:PD-Art. Rd232 (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Either template or doc is in error

The documentation says all parameters are optional, yet the template as written throws an error when the reason parameter is left out. The Doc says that the reason defaults to pd-old. Trlkly (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Changed to "required", since that's the intention. (It's slightly arguable because the template does work without it, even though it does complain.) Rd232 (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Country and URAA date

{{PD-old-auto-1996}} requests a country and a URAA date. Without that, the template looks ugly. See Category:PD-Art (PD-old-auto-1996) for some examples of what it looks like without that information. Is there a way to specify a country and a URAA date when using {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1996}}? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

We can add country and URAAdate as a "pass through" parameters the same way "deathyear" is. However first step would be to improve documentation, so more people can figure out what to do. Can someone improve {{PD-old-auto-1996/doc}}? --Jarekt (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Public domain (US) photographs

Just a clarification, I can use PD-Art for photographs, not just photographs of art, is this correct? I have no idea if, for example, File:Rosalie Osborne Bierstadt, seated, unknown date, William Kurtz.jpg, which I just uploaded, is a photograph or a scan. So I used the rather beautiful "PD-Art/1923|1904" (death of photographer) template, which says everything so well. Is this ok? Thank you so much for affirming. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 00:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A better license is just {{PD-old-100-1923}} which is the same as "PD-Art/1923|1904" only without PD-Art part. PD-Art is only needed to justify why we do not need to provide license for the (usually recent) photograph of a (usually old) public domain 2D artwork, like painting. It is confusing and unnecesary when applied to old photographs. --Jarekt (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that, thank you so much! And it makes perfect sense too. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 06:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Please explain date better

"then date is needed to pass the relevant URAA date to that template". Date of what? Publication of the work? Will the template accept non-year parameters, like c. 1850 or 19th century? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

How to designate no copyright, public domain of picture of antiquity?

I don't have a c symbol with a / through it, and couldn't copy it to my document. So what is the correct designation? The c/ and {{PD-Art}} ?

You don't have to type the copyright symbol or explain the copyright status with your own words. Just put {{PD-Art}} directly into the |permission= field. Please note though that the original work must also be in the public domain in the United States. That is not so much dependent on the age of a photography or artwork, but on the date when it was first published. For anything published before 1923 please add also {{PD-1923}}. De728631 (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You can always say "Artwork: {{PD-old-100}} <br/> Photograph: {{PD-Author|[[user:example]]}}", but other than that it depends on what is the picture of:

• for pictures of 2D objects like paintings you can use {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}}
• for pictures of 3D objects you should not use PD-Art

--Jarekt (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Red warnings

{{Editprotected}} Let's use includeonly/onlyinclude to get rid of the warnings this displays, e.g. at Commons:Image_copyright_tags_visual. --Elvey (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Please make a specific proposal. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Polish text

Now it is:

Ten plik jest własnością publiczną w Stanach Zjednoczonych oraz w tych państwach, gdzie prawo autorskie wygasa n lat po śmierci autora. (n is the amount of years)

But it should be rather:

Ten plik jest własnością publiczną w Stanach Zjednoczonych oraz w tych państwach, gdzie prawo autorskie wygasa do n lat po śmierci autora.

do, /dɔ/ (in English = to in phrase from A to B or until) here has the same function, what or less in original text.

Best regards, 109.243.152.246 20:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

As a Polish speaker I find the new proposed version more confusing than the current version. What do others think? --Jarekt (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed revision for brevity and clarity

The current language of the template, now many years old, is both misleading and verbose, not providing the essential information that content reusers require and suggesting that such reproductions are public domain worldwide, which is demonstrably untrue. The current text says:

This is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason: [...]

The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain". For details, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag.
This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain.

Please be aware that depending on local laws, re-use of this content may be prohibited or restricted in your jurisdiction. See Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs.

I propose it be revised to read as follows:

This is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason: [...]

Such reproductions are in the public domain in the United States. In other jurisdictions, re-use of this content may be restricted; see Reuse of PD-Art photographs for details.

Main points: content reusers don't care about the Wikimedia Foundation or their position, and they don't care when to use the PD-Art tag - that is internal stuff that Commons users care about, not them. I'm emphasizing that the work is public domain in the US, not necessarily wherever they are; and encouraging them to go click on Reuse of PD-Art photographs, which is a great page targeted directly at content reusers which is currently buried in the template.

I realise this will require updating translations, but I think it's important to be clear. I've gotten quite a few emails over time from people who were confused by this template and didn't know what to do. Thoughts? Dcoetzee (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 Support I agree that the new text is shorter and clearer. I have 2 issues:

1. I thought that link to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag is also useful and i think we should keep it somehow somewhere
2. Most of the time I see this template used it also has: {{PD-Art}} template without parameter: please specify why the underlying work is public domain in both the source country and the United States (Usage: {{PD-Art|1=|deathyear=|country=|date=}}, where parameter #1 can be PD-old-auto, PD-old-auto-1923, PD-old-100 or similar). Text is in red and bold letters, like here. I think this text is very unclear, especially since the artwork might not be PD in the source country and current working sounds like we need an essay for each image. How should we fix it? --Jarekt (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If we must keep a link to When to use the PD-Art tag, I would suggest small text at the bottom explicitly directed at editors: "Commons editors: see policy at Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag.". I think the right way to fix the red text is to link to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Usage_examples, which has a good summary of common usages. Your statement "the artwork might not be PD in the source country" is somewhat incorrect (our licensing policy requires the original artwork to be PD in the source country - just not the particular reproduction). Dcoetzee (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's see what other think about the link. On one hand I like to keep things simple, but I also found this link usefull. And thank you for correcting me that the statement does not ask for the image to be PD in the source country, only the artwork. I am dealing with those licenses for years and I still can not keep it all straight. No wander visitors get confused. --Jarekt (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment I'm also considering moving all the text above the PD license tag, since there's much less of it now, like this:

This is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art. Such reproductions are in the public domain in the United States. In other jurisdictions, re-use of this content may be restricted; see Reuse of PD-Art photographs for details. The work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason: [...]

I would love to get opinions on both of these variants if possible. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Both versions are fine with me and are much better than the original. --Jarekt (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Great idea to simplify to wording, Dcoetzee. I prefer your second proposal. Nillerdk (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay it's been a few days and widely advertised so I'm going to go ahead and change it to the second version. If anyone new arrives and is concerned, please respond here. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't "This image may not be in the public domain in these..." be "This media file may not be in the public domain in these..."? The template's used on more than images. WK of Angmar (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. PD-Art applies only to photographs. There is no conceivable case I can imagine in which an audio recording would add not add in a creative manner to the work being read or performed, and there is no legal precedence anywhere in the world on such matters. The page you linked does not use PD-Art (LibriVox recordings are released into the public domain by their creators, per Template:LibriVox public domain). Dcoetzee (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I object strongly enough to this change that I'm partially undoing it. It is not settled law in the United States that reproductions of artwork are in the public domain. There is a single court case in the 2nd judicial circuit which points in that direction, and the Wikimedia Foundation has decided to take a stand and apply that case to all works in the US. They have good ground to stand on; however, it is entirely possible that another court could rule another way in another case. Therefore it is simply the statement that they are uncopyrightable in the United States is not true; rather, they may be uncopyrightable in the US. I've reinstated the part about the WMF. Please feel free to state your objections here (and preferrably notify me with {{subst:ping|Magog the Ogre}}). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Categorization

{{Editrequest}} If the corresponding sub-category does not exist, the template should categorize the files into Category:PD Art directly. Otherwise these cases are really difficult to find. --Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose against adding expensive parser functions to heavily used templates and against this "magic" because it could be confusing. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There is already a parser function checking for the existence of the second template, which would be superfluous if the template would just check for the non-existing catgory. The files could also go into a category: default or something like that. And could you tell me what you mean by magic. --Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Changing the categorization-behaviour based on the existence of a category is magic. Please suggest a specific implementation if you use {{Editrequest}}. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It should look something like that:

{{{category|
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|File
     | {{#if: {{{1|}}} | 
            {{#ifexist:Category:PD-Art ({{{1}}}) | [[Category:PD-Art ({{{1}}})]] | [[Category:Files with invalid parameter in PD-Art template]]
            }}
     | [[Category:PD-Art (PD-old default)]]
}}
}}}

--Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware of Special:WantedCategories? How do you imagine re-categorization should work after a category that previously did not exist was created? I am afraid this will not automatically happen due to caching and missing cache-invalidation. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Special:WantedCategories is not usable it's too cluttered. Maybe once the change is implemented some zero-edits will be necessary, but right now we don't even know how many files we are talking about. --Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

A null edit to each file to be re-categorized would be required … well, an administrator dealing with categories would be helpful here. -- Rillke^(q?) 00:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Do not use

Do not use Template:PD-Art, its docu is incomprehensible, its parameters are excessively annoying. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the parameters which are passed to {{PD-1996}} are bizarre. But feel free to improve the documentation, it is wiki after all. Also for most of the photographs of the painting you do not have much choice: you either use {{PD-Art}} or provide license that the photographer released the photograph under. Also if you have suggestions to improve it please suggest and we can discuss it. --Jarekt (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

For the two cases where I wanted to get rid of the error messages in a hurry—unrelated to fixing templates or understanding the fine points of PD in the US—I just replaced {{PD-art}} by {{PD-old}} after {{PD-art|old}} did not immediately do what I wanted. The purpose of this template is not obvious, apparently it must be combined with another template, but the other template by itself would be already good enough. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The only purpose of this template is to explain why do we ignore potential photographer's copyright. You should not use this template if you are the photographer, or if the photographer released their image under PD license, but in other cases you should cover photographer's copyright as well. --Jarekt (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I got that wrong, in one of the two cases the source link was dead: (1), (2). –Be..anyone (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Default?

The documentation states that for parameter "1", the default is "PD-old" (meaning it is not required). However, it also says that it is the only required parameter (meaning it does not default). It may be seen below that it does not default and is required:

---

This is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason: This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer. You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years: Mexico has 100 years, Jamaica has 95 years, Colombia has 80 years, and Guatemala and Samoa have 75 years. This image may not be in the public domain in these countries, which moreover do not implement the rule of the shorter term. Honduras has a general copyright term of 75 years, but it does implement the rule of the shorter term. Copyright may extend on works created by French who died for France in World War II (more information), Russians who served in the Eastern Front of World War II (known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia) and posthumously rehabilitated victims of Soviet repressions (more information). This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/PDMCreative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0falsefalse The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States. In other jurisdictions, re-use of this content may be restricted; see Reuse of PD-Art photographs for details. {{PD-Art}} template without license parameter: please specify why the underlying work is public domain in both the source country and the United States (Usage: {{PD-Art|1=|deathyear=''year of author's death''|country=''source country''}}, where parameter 1= can be PD-old-auto, PD-old-auto-expired, PD-old-auto-1996, PD-old-100 or similar. See Commons:Multi-license copyright tags for more information.)

---

Hyacinth (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

In the old days the only wired in parameter was {{PD-old}}. Latter it was {{PD-old}} or anything else, with {{PD-old}} as a default. Then we started the requirement of explicit naming of the main license. And as you can see above if "1" is not provided it does show {{PD-old}}. --Jarekt (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we document what those strings of gobbledegook like "PD-old-100 or similar" *actually mean*, with some examples of what to do in eg. the common case of something *really* old?

And please don't explain that to me here on the Talk page, I know what a template is... although I have no clue where to find the list of templates applicable here, much less their nuances. We have to document this to be read and understood by a hapless user stumbling on the angry red link for the first time. Jpatokal (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The work of art itself is in the public domain ...

The template says that the work of art is PD. Does WFM really mean that I can just go and take Mona Lisa to my home because the painting is public domain? I know what is meant but is it really correct to claim that the work is PD? Could we correct the wording in a way? Perhaps say that the work is no longer protected by copyright. --MGA73 (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, w:de:Allmende offers as translation commons. What I wanted to say, cattle on common grounds most likely is private property, and a Mona Lisa in the public domain might be the same idea. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

'Public domain' in this context refers to lack of copyright protection, and does not imply that a physical item such as a painting has no owner. Copyright and physical ownership are entirely separate concepts. The usage here is entirely standard, and is correct. It's not impossible that it could be misunderstood, of course, but that's not in my view a reason for changing well-understood and correct terminology. Indeed, it would not be right to say 'no longer protected by copyright' since public domain also includes works which have never enjoyed copyright protection. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@MGA73: it takes a particularly herculean effort to read that meaning into the text. No one in his right mind will be confused by that statement unless they are incredibly stupid. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre. Yes but correct me if I'm wrong. But is the US leagal history not full of lawsuits where someone did stupid things and sued companies because they had not told that you should not do [whatever] with their products? And is that not the reason why companies are very carefull to add a long list of how you should use your product and what NOT to do?

@MichaelMaggs. I agree that the context refers to "lack of copyright protection" and that is what I was trying to suggest. I have seen {{PD-art}} used in combination with {{PD-old-70}} and {{PD-old-100}}. But I have never see it together with {{PD-text}} or {{PD-ineligible}} or {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. That is why I suggest "no longer".

@ Be..anyone. I noticed that:

Template:PD-Art/de says "Reproduktion eines zweidimensionalen Kunstwerks" and

Template:PD-Art/en says "reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art."

So the german version does not mention "public domain" in the first phrase. Personally I like the german version better. --MGA73 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

So far as I can see there is no distinction. The German version does not use the expression 'public domain' in the first sentence, but it is implied by the second, something that the English text makes more explicit. Reading the first German sentence alone suggests that the tag could be used for any 2D work, which is not the intention.

Your suggestion of using 'no longer' is a separate point, but would not be correct, as it implies that the work was at some time subject to copyright and that copyright has now expired. In fact, it also covers very old works that are and never have been subject to copyright protection as they were created before the concept of copyright was invented. {{PD-text}} would not really apply as the tag is intended for works of art (ie where there would potentially be artistic copyright, not literary ('textual') copyright which is quite a different legal beast). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs. I tried to reply that I agreed that "lack of" was better than "no longer" - I just wanted to explain why I suggested "no longer" to begin with. My mistake :-)

I do not agree that the German version suggest it could be used for any 2D work. The German version says that it is a photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art and we think it is PD because...

In templates like Template:FoP-Germany we use the same method. We say that it is a photo of a work of art but we think it is ok to host the photo because...

Personally I like that better. But for "english speakers" the current text may sound better. --MGA73 (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, I just tried "Flachbettscan" for "2D copy" in a translation, "Reproduktion eines zweidimensionalen Kunstwerks" sounds better. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Why does pd-art make embedded templates centred?

Look at files in Category:PD-Art (PD-old-100-1996) for example. It looks kinda funny. It should be justified instead.--Roy17 (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Confusing wording

Tag a file with {{PD-Art|PD-somecountry}}. The template now reports that This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States. However, PD-somecountry only means that the underlying work is in the public domain in "somecountry". The underlying work could still be copyrighted in the United States. This wording caused confusion on Wikipedia yesterday, see w:WP:MCQ#Commons. I think that the wording needs to be improved in one way or another, but I'm not sure how. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the red texts below be also i18n-able?

{{PD-Art}} template without license parameter: please specify why the underlying work is public domain in both the source country and the United States
(Usage: {{PD-Art|1=|deathyear=''year of author's death''|country=''source country''}}, where parameter #1 can be PD-old-auto, PD-old-auto-expired, PD-old-auto-1996, PD-old-100 or similar. See Commons:Multi-license copyright tags for more information.)

No idea why these texts were found via {{PD-Art/layout}}, do we have ideas why they "should be English only"? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Still no reply? Ask who? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible also 3D

Hi!

In Denmark a proposed law based on an European Union directive is currently in hearing process: https://hoeringsportalen.dk/Hearing/Details/67272

One of the things they want to make clear is that photos of art in PD is not protected by copyright (article 14 in the DSM directive).

Thats all good and that matches {{PD-art}}.

However as an example of what is no protected they mention a photo of an ancient sculpture (3D):

Dansk: "Et eksempel herpå kunne eksempelvis være den situation, hvor en kulturarvsinstitution har delt et generisk fotografi af en oldtidsskulptur, som en bruger ønsker at dele på sin egen hjemmeside."

English: "An example of this could be the situation where a cultural heritage institution has shared a generic photograph of an ancient sculpture that a user wants to share on their own website."

So it seems that in the European Union photos of 3D may also be PD.

Does anyone know more about that? --MGA73 (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)