Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-02-10/Blog

← Back to Blog

Discuss this story

Who owns the copyright? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Anne Frank Fonds, I believe. Gamaliel (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be an issue for a number of works and authors from around 1920 and onwards. One should think that it would be possible to set up a Wikisource look-a-like outside the formal control of the Wikimedia Foundation but in the Wikipedia spirit by Wikimedia chapters on, e.g., European soil. I myself has been keen on entering works of Carl Nielsen who did in 1931, and not at all thinking there could be copyright issues. I am now wondering whether, e.g., da:Min pige er så lys som rav from 1920/1921, falls within the rule. — fnielsen (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

da:Min pige er så lys som rav was composed in 1921. If it was published before 1923, then the copyright expired in the United States at the latest 75 years after publication, per {{PD-1923}}. On the other hand, if the song remained unpublished for some time and wasn't published until 1923 or later, then the copyright expires 95 years after publication in the United States.

The copyright term in the United States is very different to the copyright term in other countries, so the copyright will typically expire at one point of time in the source country and at a completely different point of time in the source country. The United States copyright term can be either longer or shorter than the European copyright term, but will usually be different. The Little Mermaid (statue) is an example of a situation where USA provides shorter copyright protection than the source country. The statue is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (put on display) in 1913 (more than 95 years ago), but it remains copyrighted in the source country because the sculptor hasn't been dead for 70 years.

About Wikisources outside the United States, note that s:nl:Het Achterhuis (Anne Frank) was set to redirect to wikilivres:Het Achterhuis (Anne Frank), which is hosted in Canada. In Canada, the copyright usually expires 20 years before the copyright expires in Europe. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I believe the song (at least the text) was published in 1920, so for this particular song there should not be a problem if the cutoff is 1923. But I wonder about the year 1923: It does not make sense with 2015 minus 95 years. Which act or convention does that year come from? — fnielsen (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Copyright Term Extension Act. The United States copyright term was extended by 20 years, but only if the copyright hadn't already expired. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• No doubt that, since Judge Scalia died just this week, the US Supreme Court would reach an other conclusion now that the originalist can no longer explain that a work not written by a US citizen and not written or first published in the US and not owned by a US organisation or person can be copyright-protected worldwide because, as the founding fathers had envisioned, the internet servers could be in Florida. -DePiep (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Lessig's case did come before the Supreme Court - and they ruled (I think it was 6-3 or 7-2) that copyright is regulated by Congress, not the Supreme Court. - kosboot (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Which does not exactly mootify my point. -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Where the WMF could fit in

Numerous American media companies are responsible for lobbying Congress that passed the Copyright Term Extension Act, resulting in the current default term of 95 years. Who was fighting against all these media companies? Aside from Lawrence Lessig, almost no one.

The Wikimedia Foundation has long been identified primarily as the host for the various Wiki- projects. It is only on rare occasions that the Foundation takes a stand on other issues. As the preservation (not the shrinking of) the public domain is an issue that is central to all the Wiki- project, it is my hope that the Wikimedia Foundation—preferably in conjunction with other interested organizations such as the Internet Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for the Study of the Public Domain (at Duke University)—would band together and start regularly promoting the necessity of preserving the public domain. There has to be a counterbalance to media companies's lobbying, otherwise we'll see copyright terms continually increase, with the erosion of exceptions (such as fair use). -- kosboot (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi kosboot, you should take a look at the Wikimedia Blog's "copyright" tag. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ed Erhart (WMF) - yes I've been following these small but significant steps. But there's always a need for more message and of a louder frequency. Perhaps for each Public Domain Day, all of these organizations can issue a joint statement, or joint blog or some joint message. The vast majority of people don't know about these issues until they come up against the law for unwarranted duplication, or other things. Really, when January 1, 2019 comes around, the Internet Archive and Wikisource should have significant amounts of new material that will have just become public domain, and a strong message indicating why it is important for the public domain to be continually replenished (in part because it fuels the economic engine of the economy). - kosboot (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)