Commons talk:Hirtle chart

Foreign Nationals

The term "foreign national" means something different outside the US, it may be worth using different text. -- Nbound (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Given the context, IMO it's fairly obvious what it means. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I had just started two threads about this, thanks to the confusion it had caused me (one here, one on WP). Given you are from the US, it is obvious to you, because its being used in a US specific way :P. To me it reads as: Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals (or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad). (or in other words, two different ways of saying the same thing), because US citizens living abroad would be foreign nationals in those countries under the other definition. It would be much less regionalised if it said something like: Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations, or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad. (or similar), and would still retain the exact same meaning for all involved. -- Nbound (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could define the term at the bottom of the article, with a footnote next each usage. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Ideally it would be best to change the text itself, a footnote requires the reader to realise they are they dont understand the term as intended. -- Nbound (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No rights can be derived

What does the footer mean by, "No rights (both in and outside of wiki) can be derived from the statements in this table."? It might be a way of saying IANAL, but it's not clear. Superm401 - Talk 10:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That was added by TheDJ, the original adapter of Peter Hirtle's chart to this page. I think you're right, it's his equivalent of "IANAL, TINLA", i.e. "I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice." Don't expect this chart to substitute for the advice of a competent intellectual property lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. If for some reason the right to use an image is important to you and the consequences of the work not actually being in the public domain are very great, speak with a lawyer, don't rely on this chart for advice. For that matter, the original author, Peter Hirtle,, isn't a lawyer either, he is an archivist. —RP88 10:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

We should state that more directly. "Rights cannot be derived" is, ironically, a lawyeresquely complicated way of saying, "this page does not constitute legal advice." Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Superm401 - Talk 05:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Date of publication

Could this be clarified? How to treat a never-published photograph from a family archive, for example? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Those pictures go under the 'Never published, Never registered works' section. If the picture is published tomorrow, then it ends up under 'Date of Publication: 2003 or later'. It makes no difference if the picture was placed in the family archive in 2015 or in 1815. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Date of Fixation/Publication	Conditions	What was in the public domain in the U.S. as of 1 January 2023	Commons license tag
Fixed at any time	Created by a resident of Afghanistan [...], and published in one of these countries	Not protected by US copyright law because they are not party to international copyright agreements	{{PD-Afghanistan}}

I am unsure if this assessment still holds for Afghanistan. http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/profile.jsp?code=AF and http://www.trade.gov/static/2011CCG_Afghan.pdf for instance implies there is some copyright relationship. Murky, sure. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can determine, there is still no copyright relations between the U.S. and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not a signatory to any of the major international copyright treaties (Berne, UCC, TRIPS, WCT) nor has it established bilateral copyright relations with the U.S. (see U.S. Copyright Circular 38a, last updated Jan. 2014). Your first link (the WIPO Afghanistan page) doesn't include any copyright treaties in its "Treaty Membership" section. Your second also does not include anything that suggests Afganistan has signed a copyright treaty with the U.S., in fact it says dire things like "While Afghanistan has laws on Patents and Copyright, there is no enforcement", "Afghanistan is not a member of the WTO Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement or the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Internet Treaties" and "Afghanistan currently has no laws enforcing intellectual property rights. Investors should have no expectation of protection". —RP88 (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but what is the progress? Did really nothing happened since Jan 2014? :/ -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 09:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Go back and check the four international copyright treaty links I provided. They are current and up to date — Afghanistan is not a signatory to any of the major international copyright treaties. With regards to bilateral copyright relations with the U.S., the U.S. Copyright Office issues an update to Circular 38a when an updates is necessary. None of links you've provided explain why you think this table is out of date with regards to Afghanistan. —RP88 (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@RP88: What about now that Afghanistan is a signatory to TRIPS and has copyright relations with the US. Can I remove it now? 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think removing Afghanistan would be a good idea. It looks like the U.S. Copyright Office updated Circular 38a on December 5, 2017, to indicate that Afghanistan now has copyright relations with the United States. I suspect that Hirtle/Cornell will make the same change to their chart in January (they update their chart once a year usually in early January). —RP88 (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

License templates for copyrighted versus uncopyrighted architectural works

In the Architectural works section, for architectural works that are not copyrighted in the US, it might be possible to specify the {{PD-US-architecture}} template for the Commons license tag column. For copyrighted architectural works, perhaps it would be possible to specify "For photos of such buildings, a license template for the photo AND one of the license templates in Category:FoP templates" under the Commons license tag column. Thoughts? --Gazebo (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Gazebo This is too much for me to follow. Can you provide an example? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have added some copyright tags for architecture to the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• User:Gazebo added "For photos of such works, use one of the copyright tags in Category:FoP templates". Isn't there only one United States copyright tag in that category? In that case, it makes sense to list that template instead of referring to a whole category which is full of templates from the entire world. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

License templates for pre-1972 sound recordings

For the first case under the Unpublished Sound Recordings, Domestic and Foreign section and the first case under the Sound Recordings Published in the United States section where a recording was fixed prior to February 15, 1972 and is subject to state statutory and/or common law protection, it might be possible to specify the {{PD-US-record}} template under the Commons copyright tag column, given that the current policy seems to be to allow such recordings (or at least some recordings in this category) along with the {{PD-US-record}} template. There is also the {{PD-Edison Records}} template which appears to be intended for published recordings which were produced by Edison Records.

Under the Sound Recordings Published Outside the United States section, for the first two cases where state statutory and/or common law applies, the {{PD-US-record}} tag could be applicable. For the third case, which involves recordings fixed after 1922 but before Feb 15, 1972 and with the recording still under copyright in its home country on the URAA date, it would seem that the {{PD-US-record}} tag should not be used because such recordings can, from what one understands, be subject to US federal copyright by virtue of the URAA even if the recording was fixed prior to Feb 15, 1972. Thoughts? --Gazebo (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Gazebo This is too much for me to follow. Can you provide an example? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The conditions under which {{PD-US-record}} can be legitimately applied are both narrow and nuanced, I think it is misleading to recommend its use on this reproduction of the Hirtle chart, so I've partially reverted your change. See meta: Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Sound Recordings Fixed Prior to February 15 1972 and the deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-record. With regards to foreign sound recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972, I agree, Title 17 §104A(h)(6)(C)(ii) indicates that URAA “restoration” provides “subject matter protection in the case of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972”. —RP88 (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Does URAA cancel the state copyright to sound recordings? That is, is it possible to use {{PD-1923}} for non-US sound recordings which were first published in 1921 or 1922 and which were still copyrighted in the source country on the date of restoration, if the date of restoration was in 1996, or in 1997 if first published in 1922? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you are getting at, you are considering ways to take advantage of the URAA for foreign sound recordings whose U.S. term (if they had them) would have expired before the effective date of the Copyright Term Extension Act. Foreign sound recordings fixed in the period before United States law began to permit copyright protection to sound recordings (i.e. before February 15, 1972) were granted subject matter protection by the URAA if they were not in the public domain in their home countries on the URAA date. A foreign sound recording fixed/published in 1921 and not in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (usually January 1, 1996) would have received a 75-year term of federal copyright protection, which would have expired before the CTEA extended the term. Unfortunately it still would not be completely public domain in the United States. While normally Federal copyright protection preempts the similar protection offered by state statue or common law, under Title 17 §301(c) sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972 do not have these protections preempted until February 15, 2067. —RP88 (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Unpublished works of the United States Government

This page suggests that {{PD-USGov}} only applies to published works. This is wrong, right? Or is it something remaining from pre-1978, where unpublished works were protected by state law instead of federal law? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sound recordings and the Music Mondernization Act

In October of this year, the Music Modernization Act (MMA) was signed into law. From this archived VP/C discussion, among other places, it appears that the MMA has changed the US copyright situation for sound recordings that were first fixed prior to February 15, 1972. (In short, under the MMA, such pre-1972 recordings are copyrighted under federal law for a copyright term that depends on when the recording was first published, after which the recording enters the public domain.) As of this writing, the actual Hirtle chart has a note stating that it has not been updated with regard to the MMA. It might be useful to note this on the Commons chart as well. --Gazebo (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The chart gets updated every January, so I'm sure the one in a month will have the MMA details in it. We may as well just wait and incorporate those changes. The MMA won't really take effect for three more years. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Updates to the subsection "Works Published Abroad After 1 January 1978"

As of this writing, it appears that the number of cases in the actual chart under the subsection Works Published Abroad After 1 January 1978 has increased. Among other things, it appears that the actual chart has cases for works published from 1978 to 2002 and 2003- (2003 onwards.) --Gazebo (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Time for the 95 years after publication template

It's 2019 now, so it's time for the 95-years-after-publication template and links to it in the chart.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It already includes that. (???) Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I still see the row with "1924 through 1977 | Published in compliance with all US formalities (notice, and renewal for pre-1964 works) | 95 years after publication date | (earliest 2019)" No links to the template.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, those would just be {{PD-US-expired}} (95 after first publication in the US). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we specify "after 28 years" for non-renewal?

This chart vaguely refers to copyright being "renewed" or "not renewed", which can be crucial to determining PD-status, yet neither this nor {{PD-US-not renewed}} clarifies crucial information regarding renewal, i.e. that (as I understand it) renewal must have been made after 28 years (or in the 28th year following registration). Circular 15: Renewal of Copyright from the U.S. Copyright office largely ignores pre-1964 works, but states (in bold) Note: If a copyright originally secured before January 1, 1964, was not renewed at the proper time, copyright protection expired at the end of the 28th calendar year of the copyright and could not be restored. Circular 15a: Duration of Copyright notes with more clarity that, before the 1976 Copyright act, "A copyright lasted for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. The copyright was eligible for renewal during the final, that is, 28th year, of the first term. If renewed, the copyright was extended for a second, or renewal, term of 28 years. If it was not renewed, the copyright expired at the end of the first 28-year term, and the work is no longer protected by copyright. The Online Book Page renewal FAQ states "In the US, books published before 1964 had to get their copyrights renewed at the Library of Congress Copyright Office in their 28th year, or they'd fall into the public domain." It further recommends searching copyright renewal records for the 27th, 28th, and 29th year after publication/copyright registration to be sure. None of these crucial times are indicated on the Hirtle chart: even a subtle indication of when to look would drastically improve one's ability to determine non-renewal ("well, it was registered in 1940 but not renewed in 1942, must be public domain!"). Can we add a note or footnote specifying this 28 year period for US works published between 1924 and 1964 to this chart and {{PD-US-not renewed}}? Thanks. --Animalparty (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yearly update

Is this chart updated every Jan 1 ? Hektor (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hektor: This page uses a MediaWiki variable called {{CURRENTYEAR}} and basic calculations extensively in order to produce accurate dates. (This applies only to things that are change one year every year, i.e. 1924s will change to 1925 within three hours, but § Sound recordings won’t automatically update itself when pre-1923 recordings enter the public domain.) If you spot anything that should have been updated, but remains the same even after other dates are updated, please let us know! —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

:@Tacsipacsi: Thanks for your very clear answer. And I learnt something. Happy new year 2020. Hektor (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

What happens for works where copyright was renewed?

I was updating my guide at User:Piotrus/PolishCopyright and I run into a stumbling block. Polish copyright is standard 70 years {{PD-old-70}} and so works by Polish artists who died before 1950 are PD in Poland. In 1996 Polish copyright was 50, not 70, so URAA of 1996 did not affect works by artists who died before 1946. But what about 1947? In Poland, every year the public domain advances, now, but what about the USA? What is the status of the "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations" that were "Published without compliance with US formalities" BUT NOT" the public domain in its source country as of URAA date"? Did their copyright got restored in US and for how long? Does it mean that works in many countries (most of UE) that fall under {{PD-old-70}} may nonetheless be copyrighted in the US - and for how long? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• I believe the answer is yes, and 95 years after first publication. Buidhe (talk) 07:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, such copyrights were restored by URAA, and expire just like if they were published within the US, meeting all formalities—that is, 95 years after first publication for works published in or before 1977, and 70 years pma for works published in or after 1978 (see w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Duration of restored copyright). So works of authors died 1946–1949 are currently in the public domain if, and only if, they were published before January 1, 1925. (By the way, the term “renewed” in the section title is quite misleading: “renewal” is also an important action in US copyright, but has nothing to do with restoration.) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Template recommendations

In several places the chart lists templates like {{PD-old-70}} whose texts state that an additional template is required for the work’s status in the USA. Shouldn’t there be a recommendation of a US template as well in such cases, considering this page is all about US law? Or do some of these templates need rewording, or to have USA variants made?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The wording of those license templates assumes the work is from before 1977 (which isn't a strange assumption, if the author has to have been dead for over 70 years). The chart doesn't advise PD-old-70 for works before 1977 (its a bit murky around unpublished works but whatever). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Sound recording

After 1 January 2022 all sound recordings published before 1923 will be free, so there is new tag {{PD-US-record-expired}}. 185.172.241.184 10:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Translation of the same text multiple times

Some text is used multiple times. For example "None" and "Date of Publication". Is it not possible to reuse the same term multiple times in the table so we do not have to translate it many times? --MGA73 (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)