Talk:List of films in the public domain in the United States/2009

This is a bad list

Hi folks, I'm a law school research fellow specializing in copyright, and I have to tell you, there are a LOT of problems with this list. First off, we work with archive.org material all the time and huge volumes of data there are improperly tagged as in the PD when in fact they are protected. Note also that sound recordings fall under a different set of restrictions, so many works which may be in the PD as "film" may still have soundtracks or songs that are protected. Also, the commenter below is COMPLETELY WRONG w/ regard to 104A & Golan. The case mentioned below happened in the 10th Circuit, it basically has no bearing whatsoever outside of Colorado; other than as a potential indicator of how things might go- meanwhile, works which are properly protected in their home countries are NO LONGER in the PD per 17 USC 104(a). Note also that the 104(a) problem means that book mentioned below may be referencing works which were in the PD when it was written, but have since re-entered the PD. Finally, VERY FEW movies are life + 70; they're mostly works for hire.

Honestly, I'm not sure how anyone expects to clean this mess up. It's a great idea for an article, but definitely requires someone with an expert knowledge of copyright. It could be an entire easily be a discrete website/project in its own right, but as it stands needs just about every warning you can throw at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.99.55 (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations and large deletion of films

I have added nearly all of the citations currently on the page. All films that were originally on the list that I could not find citations for after a brief search (at the two sources listed below) I removed from the page and have relocated under my namespace at User:JEN9841/List of films in the public domain.

Here are the two sources I used for my citations on the page for which the ones under my namespace I could not account for:

• http://www.archive.org/index.php
• http://www.profilms.com/publicdomain/index.htm

If you are able to find a citation for one of the films at User:JEN9841/List of films in the public domain, please remove the film from the list under my namespace and put it in the articlespace with the proper third party citation.

Thank you. JEN9841 (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Japanese ones

There can be included all Japanese films of 1952 and all previous Japanese ones. However they are in their separate articles Japanese films of 1951, Japanese films of 1950, ... It is hundreds of them. Whatever the decision will be, such titles can be placed into lists by robots. --Snek01 (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I now believe we need specific citations for each film's public domain status, otherwise wikipedia would be performing original research. Please see #Japanese films have unclear status below. 84user (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Problems

My comments from the AfD: the list needs to be clearer about where the films are in the public domain, because at the moment it seems like they are worldwide, and this may not be the case. It could stand to have verification that the films are in the public domain, too; Around the World in 80 Days (1988 film) for example is listed, but the article says it has a copyright holder. If a Wikipedia article says a film is (or isn't) in the public domain, but doesn't have a source for it, that's not enough by way of proof. Possibly also it should be stated that a film can be in the public domain, but that doesn't mean that all editions of that film are. Possibly also additional info about the films should be on the page, such as the year released. Шизомби (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree this list has problems, as does the related Category:Public domain films. Some possible solutions are:

• 1. rename to List of films in the public domain in the United States with date, country and tags on each entry like "EU" for also PD in the European union, and so on
• 2. rename to List of films possibly in the public domain, ugly but more truthful
• 3. rename to List of films public domain status, as solution 1 but also with "U" for USA

I'm sure there are other solutions, but they all need work (number 1 seems easiest). But before any rename (or other solution) is done, the list structure and contents need to be considered. I can well understand why this was taken to Articles for deletion. At the moment it is listing some films that are not in the public domain in several countries and so is misleading the reader. 84user (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Replaced with table

I have just replaced the whole list with the start of a table that could be expanded in such a way that should keep within Wikipedia policies. It still needs clarification and expansion. Alternatives are to merge it somewhere related, but I could not find anything obvious. 84user (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this move is a little too drastic right now. If we truly want to replace it with a table, lets prepare it on another page, and move it here when it is done. Having a wikipedia entry that only has one film is not helpful to the hundreds of people getting to this page every day. Why do you think a table is needed, instead of comments left next to the entries? JEN9841 (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A table is one way, appended comments is another. I borrowed the table idea from a Wikipedia:Featured list and thought it would allow the reader to sort the films into years, regions, and so on. Either way the current list needs fixing, so I have proposed a move to List of films in the public domain in the United States as a short term partial fix. 84user (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are the comments I left in the {{Article issues}} template (the reason parameter is rather obscure I agree, but it is seen by editors). The reason was "needs to clarify in which countries each film is in public domain; see Talk:List of films in the public domain and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films in the public domain. Maybe add column/tag for: (a) in the USA; (b) IP-convention. Also add country of origin to each film." 84user (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have started a table of films on Talk:List_of_films_in_the_public_domain_in_the_United_States/Temp with three headings: name, country of origin, and year of release. If anyone else can contribute to it, and possibly add on columns that cite it as a public domain film, when it entered the public domain, and countries that either do or do not recognize it as public domain, please do so. Palladmial (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

I have proposed a rename to List of films in the public domain in the United States, or other suitable name, at Wikipedia:Requested moves#May 27, 2009.

See also this related proposal to rename category Category:Public domain films to Category:Public domain films in the United States. The rationale here is similar to the rationale there.

First, many films in this list are not in the public domain worldwide. Some may not be public domain in the United States.

One solution would be to rename it (this proposal) and then most of the entries can remain as most are assumed to be public domain in the USA (at least the ones dated 1923 or earlier should be).

An alternative to moving is to start from a blank list and add only those articles for films that are public domain worldwide after providing citations for each. Another alternative is to rename it List of films public domain status and list each film together with its public domain status in the USA, Europe and so on.

Leaving the list as it is means it will be misleading the reader into believing the films listed really are in the public domain.

I believe that the Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research should be maintained at all times here. 84user (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think moving it to List of films in the public domain in the United States is a good idea. If you want we can just move it whenever. JEN9841 (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but I will wait 12 or 24 hours to see if anyone has other comments. 84user (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support – I agree with 84user's comments. Occuli (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you think?

I think what should eventually be done is to have the "List of films in the public domain" page be further linked to other list pages of public domain films by country, in the same manner that Lists of philosophers connects readers to other lists.(this would be instead of the current redirect to "List of films in the public domain in the US") JEN9841 (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. There are a couple hundred countries out there, which - as List of countries' copyright length demonstrates - have a wide variety of copyright laws. Many of these lists would be duplicates of each other, and I think that names such as List of films in the public domain in countries with copyrights lasting 70 years after last creator's death would be unwieldy. I'm for letting people do their own (original) research on this topic. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Whoever built Category:Public domain films‎ had the excuse that it doesn't provide a mechanism for citations, but this article has no such excuse. Particularly for a list offering a legal analysis, every item requires a citation. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I know, I know. I will do my best to get around to working through that throughout the summer. I do have things to do other than edit wikipedia. JEN9841 (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Once we get this article based on reliable sources we can all agree on, the category can be made to match the contents of this article. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

How to verify if a film is in the PD

Sources for determining film PD status suggested by the Library of Congress are:

1. The US Copyright Office. Anything published post-1978 and under copyright is listed here. Thus, any film post-1978 can easily be verified using this database, it is 100% reliable.
2. The National Archives keeps a database of some public domain works. Anything in this database would qualify 100% reliable as PD.
3. Internet Archive film database. This is a very good indicator, but not 100% reliable. It depends who uploaded it, who is making the claim of PD status. If it's an anon user (ie. not part of a library collection) than it's not reliable without an additional source. Otherwise it is probably "good enough" as a single source to be considered PD. This can be qualified in a section "Note about sources".
4. Two books (below). They are exspensive, old, rare, not online and not 100% reliable, but recommended by the LoC as a "place to start".

• Film Superlist: Motion Pictures in the U.S. Public Domain. Created by Walter E. Hurst; updated edition by D. Richard Baer. Hollywood, Calif.: Hollywood Film Archive, 1992-1994. (Three volumes to date, covering 50,000 films from the years 1894-1939, 1940-49, and 1950-59.)
• Motion Picture Copyrights & Renewals 1950-1959 by David Pierce. Laurel, MD: Milestone, 1989.

Does anyone else have a suggestion for reliable sources to determine PD status? I suggest we determine what a reliable source is and then limit what is included in this article to those sources, saying so upfront in the lead section which sources were used in creating the article. This way WP is not pronouncing PD status, rather reporting what the best available reliable sources say. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should limit ourselves to just one source. Let's see where we can get with the sources you have there, which are a good find. Thank you! JEN9841 (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This article will only work if there is a limit to what sources are used - a threshold of reliability has to be set. Because the problem is, anyone and everyone *claims* a film is in the PD - but most of the time, that claim is based on nothing but self interest (pirates), hearsay, guessing and wishful thinking. It's easy to find a source that say a film is PD, but it's very hard to know if that source is accurate. This article needs to report what the most reliable sources say, and it should justify why those sources are reliable (in a "Note on Sources" section). We can agree on a limited number of the best sources as being good enough to base a Wikipedia around. It isn't a ridged set of sources, it can change and be expanded, and have exceptions, but limiting the sources to a known set of reliable ones will prevent the problem of the anonymous editor adding a film to the list because they saw a website on the net that said so, which is at the root of the problem. There has to be some measure of reliability of sources due to the huge amount of misinformation out there. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Japanese films have unclear status

Please read Doctor Sunshine's post at Commons:Template talk:PD-Japan-film#High Court status. It links to English language page Akira Kurosawa which links to Variety and to this now-stale Japanese-language page.

It's quite confusing. The Tokyo District Court's October 6 2006 decision appeared to imply that films published in 1953 would be public domain. The plaintiffs appealed, but I have seen no results of the appeal.

But the court ruled on 17 September 2007 that films by Akira Kurosawa remain copyrighted until 2036, arguing that an older pre-1970 law applies. That old law kept copyright protection for 38 years after the creator's death.

An expert needs to determine how to handle this to maintain Wikipedia:No original research. Meanwhile I am removing Akira's film Sanshiro Sugata from the list. 84user (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: Intellectual Property High Court rules Kurosawa still under copyright - Akira Kurosawa News. Dated 2008-08-01, the report states "Japanese Intellectual Property High Court ruling that establishes the Tokyo District Court’s September 2007 decision to be correct," and that "the preceding judge Nobuyoshi Tanaka is quoted as stressing that “the copyright over films is protected for 38 years from the year after the death of the director”." There is more detail and some comments at the linked akirakurosawa.info page. 84user (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright status of Metropolis

Metropolis is not in the PD in the US according to Metropolis (film). --Bensin (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Golan v. Gonzales, the restoration of copyright for foreign works was ruled unconstitutional in April 2009 as Golan v. Holder. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I wasn't aware of that. Yworo (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! --Bensin (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sortable table?

I would like to make this list into a sortable table with the column headers

• Film title
• Release year
• Director
• Studio / Distributor
• Entered PD in (year)
• Reason for entering PD
• Note(s)

Especially "reason for entering PD" would be helpful when editors want to upload screenshots of films to Commons for illustration of articles as the uploader has to specify the reason for a work being in the PD. Any thoughts on this proposal? --Bensin (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to this. I would say that we should work on it in namespace and then move it in. If you want, we can work on it under a namespace page I already have (User:JEN9841/List of films in the public domain). JEN9841 (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are no other objections within a few days, I think I'll just go ahead and transform the article section by section and then merge the sections to one list. --Bensin (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to be doing this under my namespace? I do not want to disrupt the article as it stands. Also, User:Aardvarkzz is in the process of adding studio and year information for every film. Perhaps we should wait for him to finish, or we can just have him work on the sections in the new table. Either way, I think it much better to do the whole table, and then, once it is completely finished, move the article from my namespace to articlespace. JEN9841 (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's better to work directly on the article itself. As long as it is done section by section there shouln't be any problems. --Bensin (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

now available on DVD from...

I am concerned about these additions to the list for some of the items. Doesn't this seem like an advertisement? JEN9841 (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree! DVD availability could possibly be mentioned in the articles themselves, but not in this list. --Bensin (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit from an IP address that added the "DVD info tags." JEN9841 (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Chaplin's The Gold Rush

According to the Gold Rush's wiki page, it is not indeed in the public domain. That page or this page should be amended. ~Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.234.81 (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)