Template talk:PD-old
From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.
It is a bit perturbing when there is a major change to a template that has already been applied to many articles. -- Infrogmation 07:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
People looking for accurate copyright status on media tagged with this template need to look at the date the template was applied to the media, and to the version of the template in history that existed at that time. Some articles correctly tagged in accordance with eariler versions of this template are of a copyright status that is contrary to the current version. Also, some editors tagging images may have used this template in accordance with the earlier version at later dates if they were unaware that the text and meaning of this template had been changed. -- Infrogmation 16:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Uh, 100 plus or 100 minus?
This template is (currently) in the "Author died more than 100 years ago" category, but the template says "100 years or less." What should this be? Seems like a bad wording anyway. —User:Mulad (talk) 17:48, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps it could be worded better, but as I read it there is no contradiction. Author of the work has to have died 100 or more years ago, in order to be public domain in all countries which define public domain as being by someone who died at least 100 years ago. For example, it is public domain also in countries which require author to be dead at least 70 years. -- Infrogmation 06:38, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The main problem I'm referring to is having it in Category:Author died more than 100 years ago public domain images. If someone died 70 years ago, you don't want them to be in the category for people who died 100+ years ago, IMHO. —User:Mulad (talk) 03:37, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Of course someone who died 70 years ago is not in the category of people who died 100+ years ago. I'm sorry I'm having trouble understanding what the problem you see is. Do you have a suggested rewording, or perhaps we could bring the matter up somewhere else for more people to look at? -- Infrogmation 04:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The main problem I'm referring to is having it in Category:Author died more than 100 years ago public domain images. If someone died 70 years ago, you don't want them to be in the category for people who died 100+ years ago, IMHO. —User:Mulad (talk) 03:37, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Rights to the photographic copy
The fact that the actual photographed object (e.g. a map, book, picture etc.) is in PD does not imply that the author of the photography does not hold his copyrights for it. In other words a recent reproduction of an object does not have to be in PD even if the object itself is. Wojsyl 01:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- For "slavish reproductions" of 2D art, it actually does in the US and probably the UK too. There's not sufficient originality for copyright. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. PRiis 21:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
