Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
In one section of the current version, it says that Germany gave up the trademark for such as "heroin" and "aspirin" at the end of World War I. Another section says that "aspirin" lost its trademark because it became a generic term. So, they cannot both be true. Which one is it? RayKiddy 01:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Going even further, can a country hold a trademark for something internationally? And what about inter-language? I mean, "aspirin" was probably not called like that in German. Those international issues aren't very clear to me.--Cawas 17:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Rationale for the complete rewrite:
"The copyright or patent on the work has expired." The actual formula is max(1923, year of first publication + 96) in the U.S. and year of death + 71 in the E.U.
I converted these to paragraphs because added detail made them too long for the purposes that *
was designed to handle.
"The author or inventor explicitly disclaims any proprietary interest." Not necessarily. Some law experts believe that it's impossible for an author to put a copyrightable work into PD. (Anyone have a source for this?) Even then, it's still a really Bad Idea for an author to release a work into PD, as it fails to disclaim implied warranty and opens the author up to liability. Better to release it under a simple permissive license similar to the new BSD license.
As much as I happen to agree with the "monopoly" chant, repeating it over and over is clearly biased; I'm going to neutralize the wording a bit. --Lee Daniel Crocker
I didn't intend the word "monopoly" to show bias but used it merely to distinguish such artificial rights from birth rights. Calling such rights "intellectual property" sets up a false analogy with physical property that United States law (for example) does not recognize; it's a good thing you didn't bias it up the other way.
And the soft line breaks after sentences serve a purpose: they make the diffs much cleaner. --Damian Yerrick
Can we have an example other than Mark Twain?: one story of his wasn't published in his lifetime, and finally appeared in 2001, so it's still in copyright. --Vicki Rosenzweig
What about Translation and Editing of old texts? Translations are obviously under copyright (for whatever time) and edited versions of texts (including Shakespeare, for instance) are copyright. For instance, a nasty old Shakespeare text from 1900 may be public domain, but the Riverside Shakespeare publishes an original editing, so you can't copy that one, presumably. --MichaelTinkler
The act of publishing the text establishes a copywrite on the material. This is frequently done by taking a publication that is not copywrited and printing it in a book. If I remember correctly, the publishing of the title of the book with the printing date is enough. Usually these editions will have a couple of word changes or mis-spellings somewhere within the text so that it becomes a unique version and they can tell when someone copies their version. The original version is still in public domain. However, how many people can get their hands on books 100 years or older?
Ps, I don't know of any prosecution were the word changes were used to prosecute.
In the "1.3 Disclaimer of interest" section, I'd like to add something about the impossibility of "recall" after something has entered the p.d., but I'm not completely sure it's true. For example, a single Supreme Court decision in favour of M. Mouse entering the public domain is permanent, meaning that it cannot ever again become anyone's property; decisions going the other way can be regarded as temporary. Perhaps this aspect - if completely true - is important enough to warrant its own section, here, in Eldred v. Ashcroft, GPL, etc. -- Hotlorp
I doubt that this concept was introduced by governments. What is the evidence for that claim? Michael Hardy 04:13 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
This is not true, nor is this quote from the article:
The common law position is that all creative works are granted unlimited protection from copying. Copyright legislation was introduced to limit this protection rather than expand it. This common law position applies to the UK and many Commonwealth countries. I am not sure if US courts accept ancient UK decisions as precedent, but the two legal systems are closely related. The fact that for many years the US moved from this default position to one where no protection was afforded does not change the historical fact that the common law position is one of indefinite protection. For a more informed position on this, see Lessig's Free Culture. --GoldenRing 03:37, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
Except when publishing was forbidden without a license for a particular book granted by the king. Michael Hardy 04:17 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
Really, the claim is about history, and not only should historical evidence should not only be adduced, but the story should be told here, if (as I doubt) there is such a story. Legislatures introduced copyrights and limited their duration. Lawyers then invented language in which to talk about related matters, including the phrase "public domain". The claim here is that governments had in mind such things as common public land when they decided to limit the duration of copyrights. I don't believe it. Michael Hardy 04:21 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
So, one thing I don't see on this page is mention of The Public Domain Enhancement Act, AKA "The Eric Eldred Act", introduced by Zoe Lofgren in late June 2003. Is this valuable? -- ESP 14:52 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
There may be benefit in adding what can and can't be done with public domain works - as it stands there is a lot on how a work can become public domain, but not much on what this means to the end-user of a pd work.
I object to the second paragraph - that "copyright was created to protect the financial incentive of those doing creative work as a means to encourage more creative work". The 'right to make copies' was originally granted to printers, hence publishers. The idea of incentive is highly contestable. - poil 14:16 May 21, 2004 (UTC)
I came to this page hoping to find an explicit statement correcting a common misconception that public domain means anything that's freely available in the public — i.e., posted on the Internet. While the existing text is useful and necessary as an encyclopedia entry, I would like to see a concise statement in this article that makes it clear that this is not true, in order to educate ordinary people with Internet-time attention spans. Any suggestions on how to do this within the existing text? -- Jeff Q 04:30, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, the current common misconception that "Internet-posted" means "public domain" is obviously relatively new. I'm sure there are many other misconceptions that are much older and continue to this day. However, the ability for anyone with access to an Internet-connected computer to confuse this issue is, in my opinion, a much greater threat that older ones that involved hardcopy publishing and analog media copying.
Usually I am bold about adding text that I request, but I paused on this one because this article clearly discusses the overall legal issues of public domain and copyrights. Michael Hardy has a valid concern about the larger view, and it wasn't immediately clear to me how and where to add such a concise statement without interrupting the flow. I'll ponder some more and give it a try shortly. -- Jeff Q 11:37, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
I think the common misconception of public domain has been fed by the media - they have started to talk about facts/stories coming into the public domain when they are leaked by governments etc. To take an example Shadow Defense Secretary quoted on the BBC, I am sure you would see many more even with a brief search:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1931103.stm
Not too fine a point on it, facts cannot be copyrighted. Likewise, it is common in court decisions to talk about ideas being in the public domain. There was nothing wrong with what the BBC said.
How can I best release all my contributions to Wikipedia from any kind of copyright control or licensing restrictions? As I understand it, articles that I've started can be released into the public domain, even though subsequent versions after editing on Wikipedia will be (presumably) licensed under the GFDL. What about individual edits to GFDL articles — can the edit itself be released into the public domain, even though the resultant article is GFDL? Also, I've heard rumours that the idea of the public domain doesn't exist in Japan — is this true? (Public domain doesn't mention it). If this is the case, what can I do to make sure that my contributions are available for use with as few a restrictions as possible in Japan? — Matt 10:17, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's far from clear that it is possible to dedicate a work to the public domain in the U.S. or in any European country. The phrase "overt act of relinquishment" does not appear in any U.S. court decision, state or federal, or in the copyright act. Of course, Creative Commons has their standard dedication, but they do not make the law. The evidence supporting a right to release to the public domain is sparse and difficult to analyze. This article has been expanded to make that point clear.
It would be nice if this article could explicitly address the issue of digital texts. A great deal of money may be invested by a company to create a digital edition (mostly digital texts, but also digital images) of old public domain manuscripts and books. Can such an investor then go ahead and prevent his electronic digital edition from being copied by means of a copyright? If he can, then where is his creative addition to the text itself? But if he cannot, then where is his financial incentive to further develope his digital library (especially if we are speaking of a non-profit organization that sells its product for a fee only to cover the costs of developing it)? If anyone could expand on this issue I would be grateful. 80.178.202.154 13:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In response to the frequently-championed concept that "information is free", technology columnist Nicholas Petreley once wrote, "Those who want information to be free as a matter of principle should create some information and make it free." This statement concisely illustrates the conflict between the cultural desire to make original material readily and cheaply (or freely) available and the right of original-work creators to receive compensation for their work.
Sorry, but I don't see the concise illustration. Is Petreley implying that its hard, silly or illogical to make information free? Explain less concisely why the explanation is concise for the benefit of stupid readers like me, please.
I also contest the last sentence on grounds of POV and imprecise assertions that original-work creators have "a right to receive compensation" (morally? legally? ethically?), and that the desire is "cultural" (what culture?) Suggest as a basis (concise illustration still not fixed):
This statement concisely illustrates the conflict between the desire to have original material readily and cheaply (or freely) available and the desire to have authors receive compensation for original work.
This leaves unmentioned who desires what on what grounds and merely acknowledges the existence of these desires, which (IMO) is the only concise way to go here. It also removes the clumsy double "work" in "compensating original-work creators for work". JRM 11:50, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know more about the above statement. Are some of Lovecraft's works PD? I notice Wikisource contains, for example, the texts of The Call of Cthulhu. Which competing parties claim copyright? --Axon 14:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There's a difference between releasing your work into the public domain, and releasing it with the {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} tag. I came here trying to learn what that difference is, but the article doesn't address it. Perhaps someone who knows could add that info to the article? dbenbenn | talk 21:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with dbenbenn in there. It looks like it is merely calling different names. Maybe the difference lays on the age. Looks like public domain is something necessaryly old enough to be put in there by "everyone" while the CopyrightedFreeUse would be one's attempt to put something in a kind of "private public domain" just while "the humanity" don't pick that something to put it in the public domain. Please, correct me if I'm wrong here.--Cawas 17:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Software is a slightly special case because of the distinction between its exectuable files and the source code that describe how it was written. The executable files of a piece of software might be public domain, but this does not mean that the source code of the software is available or is available in the public domain. I'm not sure if this comment belongs in the article but I thought I'd log it here in case anyone else wants to add it.--Malcohol 13:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
About the public domain, I have an old hitchcock film (original The Man Who Knew Too Much from 1930's) which is in the public domain. If I were to rip this film from the DVD I purchased to share online, would that be OK in the eyes of the law? --Mrmiscellanious 19:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you want to know what's in the pbublic domain and what isn't, check out User:Quadell/copyright. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:10, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've being out of this subject for sometime, and I definetly lack of vocabulary and correct spelling but I wanted to add this thought right now. Maybe we're talking about two different types of Public Domain... One would be "US Public Domain" the other one "Humanity Public Domain". I like to believe US government releases works into both. --Cawas 14:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Is it true that court files in the United States are in the public domain? --84.139.36.162 01:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
The article needs to be broadened. All land owned by the Federal Govt obtained through the Louisiana purchase, the addition of various western states in the 19th century etc., was referred to as the Public Domain until disposed of or reserved by the General Land Office. The term is also still used to refer to public lands. 138.88.163.79 01:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
(Source for this "lease" theory?? It doesn't hold up, because domain names can be taken away from cybersquatters and the like.) --128.12.170.6 (talk · contribs)
I can't see what exactly what's wrong with the tone of this article. Feel free to motivate that banner, but if no one does, it should be taken down... --83.250.216.22 20:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I cut the part about recopyrighting; Feist was unhelpful, and the link was less helpful (and court proceedings are not authorative.) The URAA (which I'm having trouble finding a Wikipedia link to) put a bunch of foreign copyright back under copyright. I corrected the unpublished works; there's no reason why it will be several decades.
The last two paragraphs are also wrong. Books published without copyright until 1978? dropped immediately into the public domain; the five year leeway was only for a short time before Berne kicked in. I don't have the concrete years for this, so I'm not changing this now.
"The contributions to the public domain have been effectively zero for many years now." isn't exactly true; in the years before the last copyright extension, books published in the early 1920s dropped into the public domain, as well as books not renewed in the early 1960s. --Prosfilaes 01:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Could we have some sources for Public domain#Revocability where no consideration? This has potential applications to Wikipedia (articles being derivative works of licensed-without-consideration submissions) and so is pretty important. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
If what Professor Moglen has had to say was private, why is it quoted on Wikipedia? --Anon.
There's a fragmentary sentence in the current version which says "It wasn't until 1993 when Republic Pictures relied on the 1990 United States Supreme Court ruling in Stewart v. Abend to enforce its claim of copyright of the film". Is this supposed to say "It wasn't restored until 1993..."? And if so, is this true? And if so, should the preceding sentence "In the United States, Frank Capra's classic film, 'It's a Wonderful Life' (1946) was put into the public domain in 1974" be changed to say something like "...was temporarily put into the public domain"? Also, doesn't this provide a counterexample to the earlier statement that "Generally, it is held under Feist that Congress does not have the power to re-copyright works that have fallen into the public domain"? Steve Summit (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm interested in getting some opinions about this: Australian and US public domain are not the same, because when Australia extended their copyright terms in 2005, they did not do it retroactively. For example, Steamboat Willie should be public domain in Australia, but not in the US. Is it then possible for someone in Australia to "release" works into the US under a "free distribution" type of license? If someone in Australia modified Steamboat Willie, that would then be a new work and whoever modified it would own the copyright to the new work. Would they then be able to release the new work to the US? Thanks, to anyone who is interested enough to respond! - James Foster 13:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, since many countries use the (life of author) + X rule, what happens when the author is an organisation rather than a single person? Is the copyright then just X years? - James Foster 13:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.