Talk:Public domain

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2023

Hi! Very small issue, but the second reference to Leonardo Da Vinci on the page for public domain, re-directs to the page to the airport, not the guy. See the example of the current page below:

Marcel Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q. is a derivative of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa

The link should be changed to reflect the one below

Marcel Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q. is a derivative of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa

or, as Leonardo da Vinci's link is already present on the page, simply removing the link altogether would accomplish the same.

Marcel Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q. is a derivative of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa

Thank you for your time!

- Lochiedoesstuff (talk) 07:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've just removed it per WP:DUPLINK. Thanks. Liu1126 (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

"no exclusive intellectual property rights apply"

If that is not true, then we consistently use this term incorrectly in the Wikimedia world. At least in a Wikimedia context, public domain normally refers only to copyright protection. There can still be trademark protection (and also personality rights, etc., though those are not intellectual property rights). A good example of this is that the Lloyd's of London logo is far too simple to copyright, but is trademarked. Obviously you couldn't use it in any way that connected to the insurance or shipping industry, but I believe it would be correct to say that in terms of (for example) its incorporation into a work of art it is "in the public domain." I'd be interested in others' take on this. - Jmabel | Talk 16:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Unprotect this page please

This page deserves to be unprotected as it was in the past 78.17.249.14 (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Requests to unprotect a page can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Having said that, this page should not be unprotected, as a huge portion of the edits made before protection were destructive or vandalistic, and used up effort undoing them. If you have an edit you wish seen made to this page, recommend it here on the talk page. You also have the option of getting an account, which would lead to you being able to edit this page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2024

For the embedded video of Steamboat Willie, I feel like it should be replaced with the clearer version currently embedded in Steamboat Willie article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Steamboat_Willie_(1928)_by_Walt_Disney.webm). DarkMetal485 (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done as the video has been removed by another user. If you would like to re-insert the video, please reactivate this edit request. Thanks! TGHL ↗ 🍁 23:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

List of public domain works?

Does there exist a list of PD works? I, of course, don't mean of ALL works in the public domain, but of those important enough to have their own Wikipedia article? --91.64.59.91 (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

We do on Wikipedia have Category:Public domain. However, I would caution that not only are not all PD works going to have that category flagged, but that people sometimes misjudge works as being PD and thus some items may be falsely flagged. Additionally, public domain status is not global but national; a work may be PD in one country but not another. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Public domain by medium

needs a section about images. RedAuburn (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

indeed, RedAuburn and it needs a section about grafitti- My uploaded photo of grafitti is threateend by deletion because someone is claiming No FoP for 2D works in the United States. I see that basically no images of grafitti can be preserved on WP, which makes pages like Wynwood Art District look skeletal. what can be done ?--Wuerzele (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I have undone your addition of the empty header about graffiti with a call for expansion, because there is nothing there to expand, and it is utterly unclear what would be particularly added to it, what special things would need to be said about graffiti (the material concerning its use in "freedom of panorama" is better covered in that article, and already is.) As for your concerns about what can be done on WP, this is not the page for that; it is specifically about editing this article. I will post briefly on your personal talk page shortly. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

What you've now added

1. does not explain what it has to do with "public domain", the topic of this article (even our article on Visual Artists Rights Act makes no mention of "public domain"
2. does not explain that it is US specific
3. does not particularly fit the header you've given it (a more general "works of art" header, perhaps.)

Particularly due to #1, I am removing it from this article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

And now the same editor has restored the problem material and added material that copyright protection does not apply to certain material... but the source says only that "moral rights" do not apply, which is not placing the work into the pubic domain and thus is inappropriate for this article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Nat Gertler, please stop editwarring. You appear to have an ownership problem with this page. You edit (revert mostly) without adding any content. As suggested repeatedly, help to expand the section RedAuburn suggested and I started. Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I frequently edit without adding original content. I undo vandalism, test edits, inexplicable edits -- this article (and this talk page) are a bit of a magnet for inappropriate edits.

I am not of the belief that @RedAuburn: wanted just any section labeled "images". I suspect he wanted one that contained content that is relevant to the topic "public domain" as it applies to images. I am unclear on why you think your edits should not be subject to the bold/revert/discuss cycle. If you would like to explain how the content I deleted is actually relevant to "public domain", a term not used in the sources you were using, feel free to do so. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

And I have now again removed those paragraphs. Only one of the sources used the term "public domain" at all, and that was in a headline (so not reliable source) and meant it not the in the legalistic sense this article is about. Some of the text claims failed verification; a work no longer having VARA protection does not mean it is shorn of the larger copyright protection granted by the various copyright acts. There is no consensus shown for inclusion of this material. Inserting editor should instead suggest changes here on talk and find consensus before reinserting. That's the stage of WP:BRD where we are now. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

My edits were neither inappropriate,nor vandalism, test edits, inexplicable edits- to ramble on generically here is wasting everyones time. You should add text productively and also not guess what Red Auburn wanted- he stated it. Wuerzele (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@NatGertler and Wuerzele: some thoughts after reviewing the thread above and the previous additions here:

• WP:BRD is specifically optional, even if it would be nice if it were applied. Bold revert revert revert revert revert as an alternative to that is, however, indicative of an edit war.
• Given this article is on the generic topic of Public Domain, coverage of subtopics would ideally be holistic/comparative/contextual rather than expansive on a single jurisdiction. For US-specific coverage there's Public domain in the United States and Copyright law in the United States available (and possibly other suitable articles).
• The "public domain" referred to in the headline of the Golden Gate Express article does not appear to be using the term in the technical sense of this article, but rather in the sense of graffiti art in public[ly-visible] locations, without consideration of copyright or the lack of it.
• I don't believe that the VARA cases establish anything regarding public domain: the 5 Pointz case established that VARA could apply to works where consent for the graffiti was properly given, while the Canilao case established that the moral right against destruction was not granted where consent for the graffiti was not properly given. There's no indication from this article that the works therefore fell into the public domain (for instance could anyone make and sell Tshirts using a photo of the artwork?), and the term "public domain" does not appear in the court's opinion.[1] It looks like VARA is additive to the (US) Copyright Act, not replaceative, and does not pertain in any way to public domain works.
• Nor is the term "public domain" used in Lerman's article - indeed the summary states "This article analyzes the challenges that artists face when enforcing their rights in their graffiti, both under the Copyright Act and the Visual Artists Rights Act".
• The first two paras should thus not appear in this article. Most of those first two paras could be integrated into Graffiti in the United States (where VARA and the graffiti cases are not mentioned), but the start, which uses reference #28, should not remain in its current form even there, due to apparent WP:SYNTH and poor sub-editing at the source.
• The third paragraph in its current form appears overly specific for this generic subtopic. It could be used wholesale to improve German Wikipedia#Reiss Engelhorn Museum. There would, however, be something briefer / more general that could be written about copyrightability of visual images/reproductions of public domain works, which might use that linked case as an example.
• There should probably be an article on Wikipedia and copyright, given the German case and Monkey selfie copyright dispute and other related topics in List of Wikipedia controversies, and probably elsewhere.
• The subtopics of paying public domain and copyfraud in relation to the restriction of imaging of public domain works, as well as Freedom of panorama, as intersecting the public domain and the copyrighted/trademarked, appear to belong in this subsection.
• The fourth paragraph appears overly specific for this generic subtopic. In the absence of Wikipedia and copyright, it would belong in Freedom of panorama (contextually integrated and probably with the authors and their paper specified rather than "some authors") given the context of the source.
• The section title should change. I suggest "Art and architecture" given FoP's impact on the latter.
• It may be worthwhile to request assistance for this section at Wikipedia Talk:Media copyright questions given its focus is largely on free vs non-free imagery (or specifically approach some of its main editors given their interests/expertise).

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. We are in strong agreement on those first two paragraphs. I have not yet had time to delve much into the newer additions, but hope to get to them soon. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree that only sentences with the term public domain in it can vbe added- this is way to narrow.

The problem of this very important page is that it did not and still does not discuss images and graffiti.

I moved the Engelhorn para which was buried way below- and you think that doesnt even bleong here, I garee it is too convoluted. I made totally bona fide, sourced and contextual explanatory edits IMPROVING the page. Gertler merely reverted- no text addition whatsoever. Wuerzele (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are not listening to those who are pointing out that your additions were not about the legal concept of the public domain, and thus off-topic for this page. You have made no attempt to show that the material I deleted was somehow relevant.

I have in fact improved the page in this matter, by removing irrelevant material. The quality of a Wikipedia page is not measured in how many bytes of text there are, or the total reference count. It has to do with how well the page addresses its subject. We have may important pages that do not discuss graffiti; its lack here is not an inherent flaw. It would need a reason why graffiti is of particular relevance to the legal concept of "public domain", which is not something that you've addressed.

You have been given ample opportunity to address these concerns. You have chosen not to show how the material is relevant. You may want to take a pause and consider why you are reacting in this manner, rather than trying to gain WP:CONSENSUS for your edits. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed what was the fourth paragraph. I pared slightly on the third, but in combination with a US case, it actually got to the question of whether a reproduction of a public domain work is inherently in the public domain (answer: depends!), so I added the US case and moved it somewhere more appropriate within the article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)