Open main menu
This template was nominated for deletion 31 December 2013. Result was No Consensus to Delete.


New YorkEdit

Revision by Gazebo on 2014-02-18 at 07:34Edit

From what one can tell, the template currently indicates a policy wherein pre-1972 recordings that are not based on underlying copyrighted compositions or other material can be treated as out of copyright except in New York State and certain foreign countries. At the same time, it would seem that the copyright situation of pre-1972 recordings could change in the future (i.e. if there are rulings in states other than New York State or if federal copyright is extended to pre-1972 recordings) and so the template has been edited to reflect this. If a user is looking for sound recordings with the intent of finding recordings that they can treat as being uncopyrighted throughout the future, this information is important. Another issue is directing copyright holders to the page for the WMF designated agent--though the applicability of the DMCA notice and takedown provisions to pre-1972 recordings may not be totally clear, it would seem reasonable and an indication of good faith on the issue of respecting copyrights to direct copyright holders to the designated agent info even in the case of pre-1972 recordings. Finally, there is an aspect of US copyright where certain sound recordings that are of foreign origin can be copyrighted under federal copyright via the URAA even if they were fixed prior to Feb 15, 1972. From what one understands, sound recordings that are subject to federal copyright (whether via the URAA or other reasons) should only be uploaded to Commons if the recording was released under a free license by the copyright holder and this template should not be applied to pre-1972 recordings that are federally copyrighted via the URAA. --Gazebo (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikilegal reportEdit

In response to request from a user, there is a Wikilegal report at meta:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Sound Recordings Fixed Prior to February 15 1972 related to this issue.

Wikilegal is a place for the community to engage in a discourse on legal issues the projects face. Although made by Foundation legal staff or interns, these posts are not intended as legal advice, but they are an opportunity for inquiry and discussion. See meta:Wikilegal for more. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we should make this template conform as much as possible to that Wikilegal Report, and that Wikilegal Report should be modified to conform as much as possible with applicable law. I have started a discussion at that report's talk page.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

State laws summaryEdit

So basically, state laws have far, far longer copyright terms than federal law -- in some states, the copyright lasts infinitely... but it will be superseded in 2067. 18:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You mean 2068. 13:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


This sure is an interesting template. The linked page in the Federal Register indicates that 1946 is a key year; stuff recorded before that year probably won't be covered by the URAA (see footnote in this template), nor will stuff recorded in the U.S. after that year. So I suggest we mention this in the template. Okay?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Any sound recording protected in the source country on the URAA date is subject to federal copyright in the United States. In most (all?) countries, the copyright term for sound recordings was at most 50 years from either publication or creation, so sound recordings published before 1946 would typically not be subject to federal copyright, although there could be exceptions. Additionally, pre-1972 sound recordings are subject to state copyright in the United States, and many states seem to have forgot to implement copyright expiry. I don't think that it would be a good idea to mention any specific URAA date or non-US copyright term as such things differ and easily become confusing. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. Here's what I want to add to the footnote: "However, using this template would probably be consistent with the URAA if the non-US-origin recording was recorded before 1946, but see the Federal Register for details." For foreign recordings of music composed before 1923, I will feel much more comfortable using this template if the recording was dated before 1946. Why not mention "1946" in the template?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Different countries have different dates of restoration, and the copyright term on that date also depends on the country. You should not mention a year when there are too many exceptions as this just causes confusion. You also need to consider the state copyright - m:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Sound Recordings Fixed Prior to February 15 1972 suggests that many or all states forgot to implement copyright expiration for such sound recordings and that you therefore need to obtain permission for all such sound recordings. Federal copyright tags, such as {{PD-1923}}, {{PD-US-no notice}}, {{PD-US-not renewed}} and {{PD-USGov}} do not apply to pre-1972 sound recordings as such sound recordings are not subject to federal copyright in the first place. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we need to discuss the states of the U.S. here in this talk page section, because this template clearly says that Wikimedia takes the position that there is no active prohibition outside of New York. As far as the year 1946 is concerned, it seems that the Federal Register mentions it because citizens like us are allowed to presume that pre-1946 recordings aren't covered, subject to evidence that they are covered; the language I suggested is certainly not unequivocal. As for the tags {{PD-1923}}, {{PD-US-no notice}}, {{PD-US-not renewed}} and {{PD-USGov}}, I agree they do not apply to pre-1972 sound recordings, and I don't recall suggesting otherwise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean with 'Wikimedia'? Do you mean the Wikimedia Foundation, which posted m:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Sound Recordings Fixed Prior to February 15 1972, which mentions rules from several different states. The Wikimedia Foundation also wrote that Unfortunately, as discussed below, most pre-1972 sound recordings created in the United States are not in the public domain. Therefore those seeking to upload these works to Commons need to determine whether they are freely licensed. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I mean the people responsible for the present template, which says: "sound recording not based on copyrighted material can currently be considered public domain in the United States generally, except in New York...." The only further exception described by this template pertains to the URAA.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
According to the clousure comment in Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-record, the template Should be fixed. Since the template has not yet been fixed, you should not rely on the current version of the template but a version of it which has yet to be written. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixing the templateEdit

Thanks, Stefan2, for pointing to the closure statement: "Without consensus for deletion. Should be fixed." So what's the status of the efforts to fix the template? Is the Wikimedia Foundation involved in any way, or is the accuracy of the template something they accept no responsibility for? I could conceivably get involved in fixing the template, but only if my involvement might be helpful.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Stefan2?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation not involved in any way in template writing although occasionally if we ask for n opinion on something we might get one. The best way of fixing the template would be to propose new language here, and than ask for opinion here and at the Commons:Village_pump/Copyright. --Jarekt (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I have started a discussion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that the problem is that no one seems to know how or if the template can be fixed, with the result that the template isn't being fixed for the moment. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the word "moment" is quite an understatement. If we don't make progress on this soon, then we will potentially be violating the property rights of many copyright holders, plus misleading our own editors to illegally use files without proper permission, plus causing our own editors to engage in a colossal waste of time uploading stuff that we will have to delete. Additionally, readers may be mislead into downloading files from Wikipedia and Wikimedia that they actually have no right to download. So, some urgency seems in order, unless there's consensus that this is kind of like jaywalking in that everyone will probably look the other way.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Classics Protection and Access ActEdit

The Classics Protection and Access Act (Title II of the Music Modernization Act), brings pre-1972 sound recordings partially into Federal copyright and appears to include Federal preemption for pre-1972 sound recordings. As such, the original ambiguity that was used as the rationale for this template is no longer applicable. Discussion regarding potential updates to this template and the possibility of deletion is occurring at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Music_Modernization_Act_and_U.S._pre-1923_sound_recordings.. —RP88 (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Return to "PD-US-record" page.