Talk:List of films in the public domain in the United States/2015

The Amazing Quest of Ernest Bliss

I would query the includion of this film, not least because as a British production still copyright protected in its country of origin, the lapsed US copyright should have been restored under GATT. I don't see any reel evidence that the film is PD, other than a widespread assumption that it is. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That looks very plausible to me. The source being used is probably based on outdated information. What do you recommend doing? If we delete it then it will probably just be added back at some point. We could add a note to clarify the matter. Betty Logan (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I've never been comfortable relying solely on the NYT database for making a determination of PD. Many of the entries in this list use it, added by one editor who was IMO overly zealous about adding as many films as possible. The fact that one film is now shown (probably) not to be PD, it makes the NYT look like a less than reliable source. I wonder if there are others in the list like it. -- GreenC 21:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly the case that virtually no British films can be counted as PD in the United States on the grounds that almost none have yet become PD in the UK, and so even if once PD in the US, would have been restored under GATT. By extension the same can probably be said of films from other EU countries, as well. It might be best to have a visible note on the page stating that any non-US films other editors may wish to add should be discussed on the Talk page first, then we can assess them on a case-by-case basis. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the page should just be limited to US films and then we can be sure if copyright applies or not. Betty Logan (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That would probably be best. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I went through the list and four are UK. Removed with this edit.[1] -- GreenC 17:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Works of the United States Govenment

An editor has recently added "works of the US government" to the list (see [2] and [3]). These films clearly fit the criteria, but I question the utility of listing them. All works created by the US government automatically lie in the public domain, so I imagine the list would be huge if we add all of them. Pre-1923 films are also excluded from the list on the basis they all lie in the public domain, so I am wondering if we should extend that to US government works too? If films lie in the public domain due to criteria (rather than circumstance) then I think that defeats the purpose of including them in a list. Betty Logan (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Maybe one could argue for the creation of eg. List of notable U. S. Government produced films. -- GreenC 14:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

They meet the criteria, i will continue to list them here. Also, not all films produced by the US government are actually in the public domain. If the work was produced for the government by a contractor, it is possible that the US government can hold copyright over the work under 17 USC § 105.XavierGreen (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Well the the criteria is created by us Wikipedians. You, me, Betty Logan and whoever else wants to participate. It's true there are some government films that are not PD, but the vast majority are PD. How about creating a separate table in this article for Government films? The table is getting pretty long anyway and it would be a good time to shorten with a "Commercial films" and "Government films" sections. -- GreenC 19:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a fine idea.XavierGreen (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

US Copyright Database as a source

(Discussion moved from User talk:Green Cardamom)

Hi, before reverting, did you read the references I added? It was a very detailed information, including renewal records. I don't see what you want more. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Internet Archive is not a reliable source. It's a website anyone can edit, anyone can say whatever they want. This has been discussed multiple times on the talk page. Also the LOC catalog doesn't say the films are in the PD either. You would need to find reliable sources such as the other ones used in the article - books, magazines, newspaper articles. Blogs, re-sellers of DVDs, online publishers of films etc.. are not reliable for reasons discussed on the talk page. Please read the talk page there are years of discussions. -- GreenC 05:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not happy at all with your revert. I have showed with references, so who are you to revert me? The LoC database is certainly a better reference than any journal/magazine/whatever. You said yourself here than any film in our list post-1978 and not in that database is public domain 100% certain. You can't even be consistent with yourself? Yann (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

No you have not shown the films are in the PD. Simply appearing in the LoC catalog does not mean it's Public Domain! By that logic everything in the LoC is PD. You misread what I wrote, go read it again. I was referencing the two government databases listed here #1 (US Copyright Office) and #2 (National Archives). And only for films published post-1978. My comment about #3 Internet Archive is outdated from 6 years ago, there is no consensus for Internet Archive being a reliable source as subsequent threads show. -- GreenC 22:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't use IA as reference. And if there is no renewal in the LoC database, it is certainly a proof that the film is in the public domain (except material included which are not). Yann (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The LoC database has nothing to do with it. The LoC does not register copyrights nor does it renew them. The LoC has nothing to do with copyrights. Copyrights are registered with the US Copyright Office. -- GreenC 22:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you are playing on words. :( Yes, I mean the database of the US Copyright Office. You know that. That is where are my references. Yann (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok I see what you did, linked to the Copyright records hosted at the LoC. But even this is a problem because it is an original research interpretation of a primary source. You would need to find reliable sources such as the other ones used in the article - books, magazines, newspaper articles - by sources considered reliable such as film experts or other authoritative entities. You are not qualified (for Wikipedia purposes) to make a determination that a film is PD based on research of US government copyright records. Need a reliable secondary source that discusses the film's copyright status. -- GreenC 19:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that is complete nonsense. As I already said above, a reference to the Copyright records at the LoC is much more reliable than any book, magazine, newspaper, whatever. I understand perfectly than some sources like IA are not reliable enough, but that's not the case of my references. You need to stop being bureaucratic for no reason. Also I was told that searches to the Copyright records should use the registration number. I will do that and add them back like this. Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not "complete nonsense". There is zero consensus on Wikipedia for editors on their own determine a film or whatever is public domain using only primary source database research while applying their understanding of the law to reach an original conclusion. Copyright is complex. Just because it's not in the database doesn't mean it's public domain. Should you care to open an RfC that's no problem -- I will notify the appropriate forums with editors who are experienced in copyright. -- GreenC 01:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if there is no renewal, the film is in the public domain. If you can't figure this simple thing, how can you make such complicated design? Now, your interpretation of original research is wrong. I don't invent a new theory nor try to prove new ideas. I have just adding a very reliable reference to prove a fact. Yann (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That is true about the renewal but it's not true the database is always accurate, or there may be competing claims on some or all of the film properties. That is why we rely on secondary sources not primary to make a determination. -- GreenC 14:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Another reason your requirements are out of place is that these films with my references are accepted on Commons, which have very strict requirements about copyright (and I asked other copyright experts there, and and they agree with me). So it looks a bit silly that the full movies are available with a public domain template, but that can't be mentioned in this article. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see "they agree with me". You appear to be trying to add 2 films as PD: The Fast and the Furious, Plan 9 from Outer Space. The first is not on Commons. The second complete film is on Commons uploaded a few days ago. Plan 9 does have reliable secondary sources reporting it's in the PD. Example. You would save a lot of time and effort by providing reliable secondary sources like this, rather than doing Original Research in WP:PRIMARY source databases.-- GreenC 19:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You are a bit of bad faith, aren't you? I created this request on Commons today because of your opposition here. I am preparing a mass upload, but the file size is big or huge, and I like to do it right. I had discussed this with several people on IRC, and so far they all agree with me. And uploading is waiting for a bug to be fixed (phab:T118887). Meanwhile, Racconish and I uploaded a few files manually. For more info, see c:Commons:Batch uploading/Public domain films. Anyway, thanks for the link.

A little later. I have now read the link you provide above, and my position remains the same. This is certainly not more reliable than a reference to the renewal database, and it is most probably worst. It doesn't say that Plan 9 from Outer Space is in the public domain, just than "most films" by Ed Wood are in the public domain (which ones?). And where does this book find this information, if it is not from the renewal database? At least a precise search with the registration number showing the absence of renewal is certainly better than this. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You are confusing Wikicommons with Wikipedia. Wikicommons has to prove PD status since the work is hosted there. Wikipedia is a secondary source based no original research encyclopedia. If that source isn't to your liking find another one like it. Also your uploads to Commons are weak because you are basing it on the mere existence on Internet Archive -- IA does not verify anything, anyone can upload whatever they want and claim PD status, its meaningless. As I said, this is clearly going to RfC here, and likely at Commons also. I will have no problem notifying Wiki Legal also. -- GreenC 22:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• In my opinion, we have evidence that the films are in the public domain in the United States (provided that Yann's original research is correct – I have not checked the Copyright Office's renewal database for verification). Therefore, we have enough information in order to host the files on Commons.

In my opinion, we do not have a reliable source saying that the files are in the public domain. Consulting the United States Copyright Office's database seems to be original research. Commons file information pages can be edited by anyone and are therefore 'unreliable sources'. Therefore we do not have enough information in order to state that the files are in the public domain in a Wikipedia article.

Yann, you can compare this to threshold of originality judgements. The page c:COM:TOO contains a number of examples from official court rulings, but we also allow {{PD-textlogo}} and similar tags for other files where it is obvious that a court wouldn't uphold copyright protection. However, Wikipedia's article Threshold of originality only contains pictures which have been evaluated in courts or by the Copyright Office, since those are the situations in which we have reliable sources about the copyright status. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I have only just become aware of this discussion (so thanks for copying it to the talk page). I am inclined to agree with Green Cardamom: using your own interpretation of the law to determine whether something is still under copyright or not is original research. If a renewal does not appear in the catalog I agree you have a compelling argument that the work is in the public domain but there are other factors to consider. Do we even know if the catalog is complete? If the film was released in another country first what bearing does that have on the copyright per the Uruguay Round Agreements Act? And please note just because the copyright on the physical entity of the film itself has lapsed that does not mean that derivative rights have lapsed (per It's a Wonderful Life). If Wikipedia is claiming something is in the public domain when not a single other credible secondary source claims the same thing then it is over-stepping the bounds of what Wikipedia is allowed to do. Betty Logan (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, It's a Wonderful Life is an example of a "Multilayered Work", as described at the Stanford Public Domain Troublespots. This is one reason films are particularly difficult to determine PD status, unlike images or books which usually have a single layer. See also this guide from the US Copyright Office to see how tricky it can be to determine copyright. It advises that "In many cases, it is important to consult with a copyright attorney before reaching any conclusions regarding the copyright status of a work." -- GreenC 00:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you are wrong. The University of Pennsylvania, which is certainly a better expert on copyright than Wikipedia people says that the US Copyright Database is "the definitive record." Now, you want to replace this by references in various magazines and journals? Nonsense... Yann (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That may or may not be the case (I have my doubts since registering a work is no longer a requirement to enjoy copyright protection) but it doesn't exactly refute my observations above. Something such as It's a Wonderful Life may be no longer under copyright, but that doesn't mean it is in the public domain because some of its derivative components are still under protection. Also, the URAA asserted that many foreign works that did not comply with the US copyrght laws are not in the public domain if they are still protected under copyright in their native country. There is also the opposite to that: a manipulated public domain work (such as colorization) may be registered for copyright, but that doesn't necessarily mean the underlying work is no copyrighted. So, even if the Copyright database is the "definitive" source on what has been registered for copyright in the United States it is not the definitive record of what is in the public domain. Betty Logan (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)