Template talk:PD-US-no-renewal

http://www.un.int/usa/host_hqs.htm is now a broken link. In case another reliable URL cant be readily found, I have created United States Headquarters Agreement as a copy from the cache and checked it against other copies found on .edu sites. John Vandenberg 15:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom Swift and His Giant Telescope

I'm confused about this one. We've had it since 2007 with a {{PD-US-no-renewal}} template thanks to a COTW. Presumably the text is from PG, who state that they have done an extensive search and have been unable to find a renewal per [1]. In addition many bloggers etc. claim that it was not renewed. However, when I look on the United States Copyright Office website I find that there are three listings from 1984 and 1987. I've researched the "Better-little books" business and that is how it was originally published in 1939. The cover image is used throughout wikimedia but that's going to be a commons issue to sort - once we've had a go? Thoughts? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Was it renewed within the first copyright period, which I believe is 27 years? If not, then one would believe that it went into the public domain, and an attempt to register in 1984 would be recorded though invalid. Registration would not extract the work from the public domain, just keep it there. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Billinghurst's appraisal, and wondering why {{PD-US-no-renewal}} does not say what the time period is. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, for something published in 1939 it would have to be renewed in either 1966 or 1967 (which predate the online copyright.gov records), i.e. at least 27 years after it was first published / registered but not later than Dec 31 in the 28th year. Stanford has a searchable database for earlier book records here; Google has one here. If no registration, it became PD on Jan 1, 1968, and nothing could restore it. The three entries above are not renewal entries either; presumably those are to copyright additional matter in new printings or something like that. The above entries look to be not registrations, but are rather "recording documents", I think indicating transfer of copyright or other matters pertaining to copyright -- basically just a notification to the Copyright Office for the record. They were done in bulk with lots of other titles... probably just included the name in case copyright existed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all for the pointers. I've gone back through everything and can't even find the initial registration. Looks like the renewal for this one was missed. Odd that, given the Stratemeyer Syndicate's almost paranoia over their books. Now, I'll try and find some scans for it.

@Carl, I should have picked up the 1984/1987 dates. The Syndicate sold out to Simon & Schuster and transferred the copyrights over at that time.

@Jeepday, the reason there is no time period, is that Victor Appleton was one of many pseudonyms used by the Syndicate and the actual authors sold their copyrights to the Syndicate. Therefore, there is no date of death. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant to say that {{PD-US-no-renewal}} should be updated to say "and copyright was not renewed by Dec 31 in the 28th year after publication." If the template said that, we would not have had this conversation, as the work is clearly in the public domain. Jeepday (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The template currently is {{PD-US-no-renewal|author's death year}}, so maybe what we are looking for is something that says {{PD-US-no-renewal|publication_year=XXXX}} and we work out how we want the template to work from that point around the variations. Probably something that can be worked upon at Template talk:PD-US-no-renewal. To me, the year of death of the author is irrelevant with this template. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur JeepdaySock (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The year of death may apply for any country that ignores US copyrights and applies their own system. I don't know which countries that would be but there's probably one or two. A second paramter could be added. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Good call, my brain freeze. I would suggest that we look to use the parameter pubyear, to be specific and minimise confusion. What text changes would we looking to undertake with the addition of the year? Presuming that we are looking that looking to say that says published by, and check for renewal has been undertaken to year X+28. I would also think that we would want a bit of smarts here looking for abuse, eg. if someone puts a year after 1963 (or is it 1964?) that it may show up in an identified category of possible copyvio. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Copying from Carl Lindberg above, what about "Works published in X would have to be renewed in either X+27 or X+28, i.e. at least 27 years after it was first published / registered but not later than Dec 31 in the 28th year" or shortened to "Works published in X would have to be renewed between 1st January X+27 and 31st December X+28." - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Done AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you :) JeepdaySock (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:PD-US-no-renewal

Addressed and corrected or being addressed in more appropriate area JeepdaySock (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I am going through Category:PD-US-no-renewal and adding |pubyear=, approach is alphabetical. I will make a note here if publication date is not evident on work, for later follow up. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Publication date not on work

* Almuric

• This was renewed; I thought I already nominated for deletion but it seems I missed it. It was published in 1939 and renewed in 1966. I have marked it as a copyright violation. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

* American Jewish Year Book/Volume 29, pub date not listed, incomplete work proposed for deletion, JeepdaySock (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC) * Ascent of Mount Carmel, per Ascent of Mount Carmel/Prefatory/Translator's Preface To The Second Edition looks like published in 1941, need to confirm. Also need author DOD. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• What Then? - Another work without a publication date - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

  Pub 1937 added to work http://books.google.com/books?id=7bmZQTGbJo4C&pg=PA505&dq=What+Then?+William+Butler+Yeats&hl=en&ei=bLHsTejIBsnr0gH2srGWAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=What%20Then%3F%20William%20Butler%20Yeats&f=false reference JeepdaySock (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• At the Root, lists a 1918 written date, no pub date. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

  Published July 1918 according to hplovecraft.com No renewal necessary so licence changed. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Captives, JeepdaySock (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

  Published in January 1923. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  No, I was wrong. It was published slightly later in 1923 and that was in France. I think the URAA applies, so I have tagged this with copyvio. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, it was fine, although still published in 1923. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delia (song) JeepdaySock (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Demons of the Sea (author died in 1918) JeepdaySock (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

  Added date and place of first publication. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Dio's Roman History proposed deletion, incomplete abandoned work. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• The Grandeur of Ghosts JeepdaySock (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• The Mystery of the Yellow Room published in France 1907 - 1908, translation pub not listed. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

  There's a 1908 copy in the Internet Archive that matches our text. I'll change the licence, copy the DjVu across and start match & split. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

  Done. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oklahoma, part of Three Stories and Ten Poems. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

  See "Captives" (above). I have taged this with copyvio. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Robinson Crusoe, USN, pending deletion Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Robinson_Crusoe.2C_USN JeepdaySock (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Selected Essays by Karl Marx JeepdaySock (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Stealin'
• The Crest Jewel of Wisdom; this Talk:The Crest Jewel of Wisdom says it is a 1946 work of translator Charles Johnston who died in 1931. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• The Making of a Magazine: A Tour Through the Vast Organization of the New Yorker note on work "Commissioned by the New Yorker magazine in 1925, this tongue-in-cheek work originally published in twenty separate installments." so probably not published in 1925, little question it is public domain, just need to find if any published after 1925. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Template miss use

• Applied to group of works spanning throug 1965. Only work is included (The Colour Out of Space), but the group is huge. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Amazing Stories

    That might be complicated. Some issues are within the scope of this template but it continued publication well past this period. There will be more on this page soon, as I've just started proofreading Index:Amazing Stories Volume 01 Number 01.djvu. It may help to have a separate licence template for periodicals but for now I'll add a unique note to Amazing Stories. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• The Times is a similar case - technically at least three separate licences apply. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• For Amazing Stories and The Times removed {{PD-US-no-renewal}} and leave

This work is a periodical and multiple copyrights apply. The period of publication may straddle the periods of different copyright laws. Both the issues themselves and the individual contributions to those issues may have different copyright statuses.

• The Lost Valley of Iskander wrong license pub 1974. DOD 1936. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

  There's a comment on the talk page that's a little confusing. They may have meant it was published without a copyright notice (which should place it in the public domain for 1974) but I can't confirm this. I cannot find any information that shows this is in the public domain. I actually own the most recent printing but I can't find that right now to check the copyright statement. Marked as a copyright violation. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

  • , First published 1934, comments and reference added to delete discussion and work. JeepdaySock (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Index talk:PhilipK.Hitti-SyriaAShortHistory.djvu correct template, put the location seems wrong what is the correct location? I looked at The Life of Michael Angelo which is the POM, and it does not have PD tag, so no help there. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

  I've never seen a licence on an Index before. It should at least be on the mainspace version, so I've added a copy there too. I'm not sure what to do about the Index. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Photography: Theory and Practice not sure about this one, says the orginal is copyrighted in the US until 2029, but the translation is PD? JeepdaySock (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

  There may be some complicated copyright law here—the US status for a book published in the UK based on a book published in France—but that's for the Possible Copyright Violations page to solve. Tagged for copyvio. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Out of scope for closure here, discusion at WS:COPYVIO#Photography:_Theory_and_Practice. JeepdaySock (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of WS scope

These look like exerts from PD published works, not sure if they meet WS Scope. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Anecdotes about Diogenes preserved by Diogenes Laërtius
• Anecdotes about Diogenes preserved by Epictetus
• Anecdotes about Diogenes preserved by Seneca
• Anecdotes about Diogenes preserved by Stobaeus
• Anecdotes about Diogenes preserved by Valerius Maximus
• Anecdotes about Diogenes preserved by Aulus Gellius
• Anecdotes about Diogenes preserved by Athenaeus
• Anecdotes about Diogenes preserved by Aelian
• Anecdotes about Diogenes preserved by Tertullian
• Epigrams about Diogenes in the Greek anthology
• Anecdotes about Diogenes preserved by Galen
• Anecdotes about Diogenes preserved by Cicero
• Anecdotes about Diogenes preserved by John Cassian
• Anecdotes about Diogenes preserved by Augustine
• Anecdotes about Diogenes preserved by Jerome
• Anecdotes about Diogenes preserved by Clement of Alexandria

Have submitted for deletion Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Anecdotes_.26_Epigrams. JeepdaySock (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Movie Bride and Gloom, I know we just had something simular, Don't recall the outcome. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Another movie Gumbasia, related discussion Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Porky.27s_Preview, will check for impact later. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Another movie Red Riding Hood (1931 film)
  • Consensus at Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Porky.27s_Preview in scope, simular to a translation, some discussion on best approach. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

{{PD-Old}}

Starting this conversation at Template talk:PD-US-no-renewal as the suggestion is based on function already applied here.

{{PD-US-no-renewal}} is able to calculate the authors age and apply the correct pd-old template. All the existing pd-old templates are only accurate when added, they would need to be changed every 5 or 10 years for fifty years to stay accurate. Might we transition to a single PD-old and an Author-PD-old, with a DOD entry that updates it's self, like PD-US-no-renewal?

Category:License templates

• PD-old for works whose author has been deceased at least 100 years.
• PD-old-80 for works whose author has been deceased at least 80 years.
• PD-old-75 for works whose author has been deceased at least 75 years.
• PD-old-70 for works whose author has been deceased at least 70 years.
• PD-old-60 for works whose author has been deceased at least 60 years.
• PD-old-50 for works whose author has been deceased at least 50 years.

• Author-PD-old for authors (not works) who have been deceased at least 100 years.
• Author-PD-old-70 for authors (not works) who have been deceased at least 70 years.
• Author-PD-old-50 for authors (not works) who have been deceased at least 50 years.

If this seems doable, please don't hesitate to move the discussion to a more appropriate location. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added code to the template to do this. It should work, I've tested it a bit, but it's always possible that there are a few bugs in there somewhere. I have not added any documentation yet but it follows the {{PD-old|year of death}} pattern. It should work for works, authors and files (there are some Image-based categories for this template). After a bit of live testing, the other templates could be fed into this one or replaced entirely. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I re-placed {{PD-old-50}} with {{PD-old|1965}} on Be Ye Men of Valour, it worked fine. Author has not been dead for 50 years so it placed the article in Category:PD-old-possible-copyright-violations. I will drop a note at Scriptorium to so others can check for issues as well. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I know that my brain isn't fully awake, however, the use of {{Pd/1923}} was meant to alleviate all these issues so that PD-old is only used when we know that it is already >>100 years. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the background but, from adding this to some works I've found several that are post-1923 publications (some posthumous) and some where the publication date is unclear but the author died X years ago. It seems to come up with translations a lot judging by the works I've seen so far. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

For 1923-1996 works we use, {{Pd/1996}} which has similar provisions. For translations we use {{translation licence}} and fill with the appropriate parts. These all utilise that concept that you mention and apply the PD-old at the right year (currently 1910 deaths). The reason that we made a change to this licence was that the year of publication mattered in the selection range and it relates very specifically to the no licence. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

So it sounds like what we need to do is improve the directions for the templates, and depreciate all the {{PD-old-75}}, etc templates that are not dynamic. Though you would only need pd-old,for works that have not been published in the US, and use {{Pd/1923}} or {{Pd/1996}} as appropriate for US published works. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We cannot deprecate the templates as they are used by the {{Pd/YYYY}}} templates, though maybe we deprecate their direct use. We need to make them less the templates of choice and direct people to use the preferred set. We should still be using {{PD-old}}4 where it is greater than 100 years since the death of the author irrespective of the country of publishing, there is no need to have a dynamic choice when they have reached the end point. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

{{PD-posthumous}} will need to be updated as well. It still expects an accompanying PD-old-XX template and none of the other licence templates would be appropriate. If I understand US copyright law, works like Adventurer, first published 71 years after the author's death, should be in the public domain in the US; I can't see another way of applying a licence. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Draft template usage message

Note I may not be able to get back to this for a couple days, feel free to make any changes or additions that are appropriate. Consider it a work in progress, not subject to normal talk page etiquette. JeepdaySock (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

To create dynamic copyright messaging that will update as time passes and stay accurate when author author's death year (ADY) is known. Direction for including ADY is in each template document.

Published prior to 1923, ADY 100+ years ago {{PD-old}}

Published prior to 1923, ADY anything less then 100 years ago {{Pd/1923}}

Published after 1922 and before 1964, Non-renewal confirmed {{PD-US-no-renewal}}

Published between 1923 and 1996 {{Pd/1996}}

• I created {{PD-old/ADY}} using the above and am adding it to template appropriate docs. Updates at ADY will update to all template messages. Jeepday (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Add to everything appropriate except posthumous and Anon templates, was not sure what to do about them. Jeepday (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional parameter

It would be useful if this template could take a parameter that links to a clear assertion that somebody has searched the copyright database to reach the conclusion that copyright was not renewed. E.g., The Online Books Page, which is run by a librarian and Wikimedian, has many such pages, e.g. for The Overland Monthly and Out West Magazine. Syntax could be as follows:

{{PD-US-no-renewal|1935|url=https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/overoutwest|publisher=The Online Books Page}}

-Pete (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

That information can always be placed on the Talk page for the work. I think permitting a URL to be added to a template in the Mainspace is a bad idea. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what the risk associated with placing a URL in a parameter would be, I can imagine there might be one but I don't know what it is. Regardless of whether or not a full URL is placed as a parameter, I still feel that something structural (added as a parameter) rather than on the talk page etc. (where they are often currently placed) would be worthwhile. Or at minimum, documenting what the "best practices" are for how to document that research. I see @Xover: making an adjacent point here. -Pete (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)