Talk:Public domain in the United States

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

created article out of material from the main public domain article. Also created public domain section in the United States copyright law article.--SasiSasi (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information from http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-re-copyright-decision/ should be added. 142.26.194.189 (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't even mention this date; isn't this the date that public domain is supposed to return to US? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I inserted a mention with link. Incidentally I hope to be in Pittsburgh next weekend. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article not provide a list of things currently in the public Domain in the US? While nothing new is entering public domain until 2019, there should be a list of things that have already entered into public domain which are not affected by the CTEA. 67.240.108.246 (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article have information about works in public domain, but had only information about public domain works in copyrighted works... I just fixed adding information of actual works in public domain..--Alpha Lion (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a Missing info flag template at the top of the article. The article could use a section about the public domain status of documentary evidence disclosed in court cases. This is the material that the news media or interested general public obtains and includes transcripts of witness testimony (likely referred to by some other term, public record?), photographs, videos, etc. The quote below is from an article at https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-spring-2010/now-you-see-it-now-you-dont

Though the U.S. Supreme Court in 1947 in the case of Craig v. Harney said "[w]hat transpires in the courtroom is public property," what happens to the property after the trial’s conclusion has prompted several journalists to wage legal battles to gain access.

— Spring 2010 issue of The News Media & The Law, page 19.

I am not a regular editor here. Please remove the flag when something is added to the article, even just a starter section. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are research pages from the same website above:

• Now you see it, now you don't: Few guidelines exist for gaining access to evidence after a trial (quoted above)
• Access to courts
• Covering courts: access to evidence
• Introduction -- Criminal proceedings

These are from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press website. 5Q5 (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• An Itch in Time.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Who's Who in the Zoo (1942).webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The intro here doesn't seem to indicate that the location of where something was published (in the US/outside the US) might affect (or doesn't affect) its status.

For example, University of California says these public domain rules only apply to works published in the US: https://copyright.universityofcalifornia.edu/use/public-domain.html

But this University of Cornell page says these rules apply both to US-published and foreign-published works, although, they seem to separate them into distinct categories (both public domain prior to 1925): https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain

Should we change the intro line to "All works first published or released before January 1, 1925 have lost their copyright protection, effective January 1, 2020, ** whether published in the US or abroad.**" I think it would at least help clear up some of this confusion. Or maybe I'm just confused. Thoughts? Uprisingengineer (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The recent No-No Boy kerfuffle is related to this, when Penguin published a version of it based on the original printing in Japan. Because it was printed outside the US, it was public domain in the US at the time. When the law was changed to allow foreign printings to be covered retroactively under United States law, the copyright holder did not follow the required formalities. On the law, I think Penguin is clearly right, but No-No Boy happens to be popular enough now that it became a dispute. Anyway, the history of the US changing how it recognizes foreign works is probably too complicated to treat in the introduction. I think "whether published in the US or abroad" is a fine caveat. I'd also support going just one step further and saying something like "Works first published abroad [before 1978?] may also be in the American public domain," but that would have to be the extent of it. lethargilistic (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly incorrect to state that works created before the introduction of the Constitution were in the public domain, when they were protected by state copyright law. Also, the introduction of the Constitution and the Copyright Clause did not create any immediate copyright law, it was not until 1790 that Congress passed a law that supplanted the state laws. Mauls (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was just perhaps unclear. The topic is United States Copyright, i.e. copyright law of the U.S. government, rather than those of the constituent states. I've revised it to clarify, feel free to do so if you think you can clarify further. TJRC (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Future public domain works" section is mostly a list of years where the works of a given year end in public domain. It is just a repeat of what is reported in the table at the start of the article. The information about the sound recordings is already written at the "Sound recordings under public domain" section. My suggestion is to remove the "Future public domain works" section, as it does not seem to be useful. --2001:B07:6469:3006:2833:F11F:CA16:5B66 (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the section. Mucube (talk • contribs) 05:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]