Commons talk:Public Domain Day

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Revision as of 04:44, 1 January 2019 by Jeff G. (talk | contribs) (→Probably a "who cares" question, but what time does this start?: :My suggestion to be perfectly legal in all 50 States was to use 10:00 UTC (midnight in Hawaii and the Aleutian Islands), but one could push it to 11:00 UTC or 12:00 UTC for ships at sea. ~~~~)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archiving scheme

I expect that Commons will need a new event page every year and will need to archive previous ones.

I propose that the landing page for current years be Commons:Public Domain Day, and that archived years follow the pattern of Commons:Public Domain Day/2019. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
Romaine adapted events since 2013 to follow this pattern. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename to not mention a year - template problem

I cross-posted a problem at Template_talk:PD-1923#Propose_rename_to_not_mention_a_year.

On 1 January 2019 the title and text of {{PD-1923}} becomes outdated as anything published before 1924 is in the public domain. Thereafter every year the date goes up.

By the transclusion count Wikimedia Commons is currently using this template 382,842 times. There are variations of this template which also mention 1923. Perhaps this date is on several hundred thousand or even millions of other templates, all of which will need correction in about 4 months.

While it is easy to change the text of a template it is not easy to change the filename. One edit changes the text; in about 4 months we will have to do one edit per file to change the template on hundreds of thousands of files. The change should be to a name which does not reference a year and so which would make sense perpetually.

What proposal does anyone have for a new name for this? What proposal does anyone have for scheduling and executing updates?

Since I think this is a challenge for many pages on Wikimedia Commons, I propose that central discussion happen there unless someone identifies another space which is already established or better developed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion

@Clindberg: raised the issue and @Ymblanter, Kaldari, Slowking4, Prosfilaes, RP88, and Pierpao: all commented.

Various people in this discussion speculated that there could be an unexpected further extension of the term of copyright in a US government attempt to prevent anything from entering the public domain. Prosfilaes suggested delaying conversation about what to do until the last months of 2018, and now we are here! RP88 suggested renaming {{PD-1923}} to {{PD-US-expired}}. I agree with this.

What more is there to say, do, and prepare? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Templates aside, we should update Commons:Hirtle chart depending on the source. I'd expect them to publish a version that reflects the changes in 2019. De728631 (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we are certain that the US copyright will not be extended, yes, {{PD-US-expired}} is the best solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At Template talk:PD-1923 I also suggested that we redirect PD-1923 to {{PD-old-95}} and update that latter template: "This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 95 years or less, or the copyright term is 95 years from the date of first publication." De728631 (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is not a good solution though because the PD-old templates focus on the "x years pma" copyright concept while the US still would have terms based on publication. So combining them might become difficult. De728631 (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
there is no bill in the hopper for an extention, (the bills are about music [1]), so we are as certain as we can be these days. write a replacement template, and we can copyedit. i would then mark PD-1923 as historical and redirect to replacement, not 95. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should get PD-old-95 involved; it's conflating too very different things. There's no chance a copyright extension will happen this year, as Slowking4 points out. I think the Internet has changed things enough that a new copyright extension would get a lot of blowback, and I think Wikimedia and Wikimedians would be better set to be part of that blowback if we don't assume that a new copyright extension is inevitable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it looks like a copyright term extension in the U.S. is unlikely (to my surprise). I would support moving ahead with template and documentation changes to reflect this. Kaldari (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so for {{PD-US-expired}} with a redirect from PD-1923 we could use:
"This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) more than 95 years ago."
That includes the historical cutoff year of 1923 and any future annual copyright expiries. De728631 (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another Village Pump thread on the need for {{PD-US-expired}} has appeared. Abzeronow (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the proposals

@Abzeronow, Animalparty, Clindberg, De728631, and Slowking4: @Ymblanter, Kaldari, Slowking4, Prosfilaes, and RP88: @B, Pierpao, and Alexis Jazz:

Any final thoughts here? It seems like "PD-US-expired" has the most support. Opposition? Other considerations? Confirmation? Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like {{PD-US-expired}}, it's specific, but not too specific :) Kaldari (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose PD-US-1924, that's just stupid.
Oppose PD-old-95, PD-old is already used for x years PMA.
Oppose PD-US, that already exists and is used when we know it's PD but are not sure why. For example, we know it's either {{PD-1923}} or {{PD-US-unpublished}}.. but we don't know which one.
PD-US-expired is fine with me. PD-US-95 would also work. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts.. If the term would be changed, we get the same mess all over again. Okay, PD-US-expired. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PD-US-95 was my original thought and preference, but PD-US-expired is fine by me. It's a little unspecific (just by name it could encompass PD-US-unpublished and PS-US-not_renewed etc.) but we could make the wording for it specifically be for any works published more than 95 years ago. PD-US would remain the tag it is now. Definitely not PD-old-95; that pattern should just be for the pma tags. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: PD-US-published would be more in line with existing templates, but may sound suggestive like anything that's published is PD. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, don't like that name. PD-US-expired is fine. Maybe PD-pub-95 as part a series of templates for when the term is based on publication, but there aren't many of those in laws anymore (outside of anonymous works which have their own series of tags). But it seems there is a general preference for PD-US-expired and I have no issue with that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also like PD-US-expired. It's specific but not so specific that future changes would cause issues. Abzeronow (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. PD-US-expired sounds about right. De728631 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
+1 on {{PD-US-expired}}. What seems to be needed, if I well understood, is to adapt PD-1923, and move it to PD-US-expired, keeping the redirect - doesn't seem complicated.-- Darwin Ahoy! 12:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
+1 on {{PD-US-expired}} per DarwIn, however undeletion and upload execution should wait until it is already 2019 in all of the US at 10:00 UTC due to Hawaii being in en:Hawaii–Aleutian Time Zone.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having {{PD-1923}} redirect {{PD-US-expired}} sounds like a good idea. For the latter, it might be useful to have the template text mention both the cutoff date and the copyright term, i.e. "published before January 1, 1923 (more than 95 years ago.)" instead of just "published before January 1, 1923." The {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} template on en-wiki does this with some of the years mentioned in that template. --Gazebo (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about {{PD-old-auto-1923}} and all the others with 1923 in the name ? will it become {{PD-old-auto-US-expired}} ??? Hektor (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to me to use "PD-US-expired", we can change the text of the template yearly if needed, but it won't require a new name for the template.Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems to be ready already, apparently. We'll possibly have to deal with the category name, somewhere in the future, but for now I believe it will do.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I write this there is less than an hour and a half left of 2018 in Eastern Time. The PD-US-1923 template still exists and PD-US-expired is a redirect to it. Is there someone else having an otherwise pleasant and boring New Year's Eve who is willing to make this change so it's in effect when the ball drops? Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other templates

What should be done with images tagged as {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}} that were published in 1923? That is a "weaker" evidence for public domain because you have to do research to validate that it's actually true (e.g. do a copyright search for yourself). (And, for that matter, there are plenty of images tagged as no notice for which we have no actual evidence that there was no notice - it's just a photograph from whenever and we're taking someone's word for it that there was no notice ... or maybe they just assumed there was no notice.) So do we want to have a bot re-tag everything published in 1923 and tagged with one of the other templates to instead be tagged with {{PD-US-1924}} (or whatever the new template is)? Or do we want new templates {{PD-US-no notice-but-now-would-be-expired-anyway}} and {{PD-US-not renewed-but-now-would-be-expired-anyway}}? --B (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We probably should replace the 1923 instances of PD-US-no notice or PD-US-not renewed with {{PD-US-expired}} once that template is created and they fall into public domain on New Years since PD-US-expired would be stronger evidence for re-users. Abzeronow (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that {{PD-US}} would need the text edited, but probably requires little change in implementation. --Animalparty (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say just add the PD-US-expired (or whatever) tag and leave the not_renewed etc. there. If there is a history of someone using the file from before the 95 year term, the other tag shows why they were allowed at the time. I would not make it look like it just became PD. Not adding the 95-year tag is also fine, since it became PD earlier for other reasons, though I'm generally in favor of adding multiple tags if they all apply (since treatment in other countries could vary). For example, adding 70pma to US works doesn't hurt either if true, as that can govern usage elsewhere, regardless of the US situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From user:Alexis Jazz at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Urgent_consensus_requested!_400,000_edits!_PD-1923_expires_in_a_month!:

Oh no wiki will BREAK! Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm yeah, 1923 was always recognizable as the U.S. rule, but that stops working now. My original thought, along with PD-US-95 as the tag name, was to rename these other tags PD-old-100-US95 and the like. Same number of characters, still obviously referring to the U.S. separately. But if the goal is to avoid "95"... eugh. It gets harder on these. Maybe PD-old-100-USexp as a reference to the PD-US-expired name. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of the templates with 1923 in the name can just be moved to have 1924 in the name and redirects will handle transclusions. I don't know that there is any real need to update the uses of these templates unless someone just really wants to. --B (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems pretty silly to go through that every year. A year from now it will be 1925, etc. Redirects should handle things fine, but we should pick a name which does not change (at least unless the law does). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a benefit to going through it every year - that someone using the template has to deliberately enter the year. Obviously, that's not going to stop the person from being wrong or intentionally lying, but it will at least make sure that a good faith user knows what year the template applies to. --B (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: I would actually prefer PD-old-100-US-expired, staying in line with what the main template will probably be. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about PD-1996? I have to use that for Canadian photos published before 1946 to prove they are PD in the USA. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: what about it? {{PD-1996}} won't change. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't it become PD -1997, moving forward as the 1923 date moves forward? Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. 1996 refers to the URAA date (1996-01-01 in most countries), and that is fixed. -- Rosenzweig τ 02:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technical execution of the rename

I requested technical assistance with the rename at the Technical Village Pump, seeking comments here about how to do the rename and asking for help from anyone who would actually do the rename. With 400,000 edits to do I think it would be good to get a few opinions about performing this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: please breath in and out and calm down. Spreading this topic over many places and being alarmist is not helping. No, we don't need to do near to half a million edits. That would be a bit stupid. And no, there isn't any time pressure, you're only creating that. Commons won't break in 2019 because of some templates. Multichill (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: Understood - it seems that there is no one overly concerned about this and that typical Wikimedia community process, and not broad conversation, can make whatever changes are necessary. There seems to be no reason to do renames and the consensus seems to be to do redirects and minor word changes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there will be any need to edit anything there, as the whole PD-1923 family can be kept as redirects to the new template.-- Darwin Ahoy! 12:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who to contact?

@Romaine: So far as I know, you were the first wiki-person to do a Public Domain Day project in Wikimedia Commons.

Did you ever collaborate with anyone or identify other interested people in participating? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bluerasberry, I am not aware of any other participating people, besides the people that undeleted the files.
I was planning to create Commons:Public Domain Day at some moment, but you are ahead of me. My version would have been shorter than your version, thank you for that! Also in January 2019 I will coordinate the undeletion of the images and collect them again. I was planning to create Commons:Public Domain Day/2019 for that. In line with what you suggested in your first message on this page, I will move my subpages accordingly. -> Done Done.
Would it be an idea to add to the page also the coordinators? Romaine (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bluerasberry, I run de:User:Gnom/Public Domain Day, where I always prepare a post for the de:Wikipedia:Kurier each year (see links at the bottom of the page). For 2016, I also did a piece for the Signpost, see Wikipedia community celebrates Public Domain Day 2016. --Gnom (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnom: Fantastic, I am just realizing that the Wiki community has a tradition of this. I was too ignorant of what has happened in the past.
I am still digesting whatever I should see, read, and know. I am sure that I will be promoting Public Domain Day in at least two cities in the United States in January 2019. I am excited for this! Thanks for writing that previous Signpost article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand, since Public Domain Day is only becoming a thing in the U.S. this year. I also co-run the Twitter account @publicdomainday, which may be helpful. Also, Sebastian Wallroth runs de:Wikipedia:Public_Domain_Day/2019. Let's coordinate! --Gnom (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to forget WMF communications and WMF legal. ZMcCune (WMF) promised me to work on this with us when I met him in Cape Town (right, Zack?). Apparently, he has been in touch with Creative Commons, but I didn't really understand what they are planning. --Gnom (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I forgot: In 2018 we celebrated the public domain this year with the public domain month: wmbe:Public domain day/2018.
A lot more people are involved than I realised. Perhaps we can draft a list of people + their roles on the main page? Romaine (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We get our Hirtle chart from Cornell so I sent them a note at https://copyright.cornell.edu/contact tell them hello. Thanks @De728631: for bringing up the issue of them updating this. Here was the message.

Hello from the Wikimedia Commons community!

I expect that no one uses the Hirtle chart more often than us.

Wikimedia Commons was established in 2004 and we have always told people that 1923 was a special year for copyright. In a few months this changes to 1924 as now works can enter the public domain.

I am writing to share that the Wikimedia community is watching for whatever you have to say about public domain in 2019. Also, I wanted to express wiki-community interest in your updating the Hirtle chart with correct information from 1 January.

Thanks and feel free to drop in Wikimedia Commons to say hello. If you have an announcement to share then probably the best place for you is

My name is Lane Rasberry / user:bluerasberry. If you ever need wiki support then feel free to ping me.

Thanks for all your guidance,

Lane

Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great! De728631 (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The organization replied back with a brief email expressing intent to update their website and saying that anyone who wanted more information should visit their website later. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that chart has already been updated... Hektor (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pre-2019 Public Domain Days

Hi, the sentence, "There was not an earlier Public Domain Day in Wikimedia projects because no term of copyright in the United States expired between 1998-2018 due to the w:Copyright Term Extension Act."" is incorrect. Over at German Wikipedia, we allow files to be uploaded locally (i.e. not on Commons) if they are in the public domain in the EU. Therefore, we have been celebrating PDD for a while there. --Gnom (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously incorrect and removed. Totally my mistake!
I do need a better way to articulate the change. What is the change... can we say that it is for corporate works? Is there a presumption that all corporate works must be 95 years old in Wikimedia projects, or is that country specific also? I am not sure if all publishers would operate in the United States also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we need a better definition of what is really changing in the US this year. Because for the rest of the world, this Public Domain Day is just like any other year. --Gnom (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States update

@Romaine and Gnom: Thanks Gnom for pinging.

We have a monthly call in the United States planning events. In the last call we talked about Public Domain Day.

We in the US have two Public Domain Day events scheduled - one in New York City, and one where I am at the University of Virginia. This event page is not much yet but here it is:

We are thinking of combining Creative Commons Day and en:wp:Wikipedia Day because both organizations were established on 15 January 2001. So far as I know, no one has ever celebrated this birthday together in the past in any public documentation. Combined with these two we will also celebrate Public Domain Day and say that each event is an essential part of the others.

Probably by late October we in the US will have more firm plans and also I will build out more documentation. If you hear of other events then let's link them out. Feel free to edit this page by the way - I know it is wiki but I wanted to say that I have no strong feelings about how our main page should look just so long as we have something which showcases everyone. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, Bluerasberry. I have one request: Could you help us flesh out what exactly will enter the Public Domain on 1 January 2019? It would be great to have a few recognizable examples and a simple explanation about why they are entering the Public Domain. Thank you, --Gnom (talk) 07:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gnom: All documents published world wide in 1923 will enter the public domain in the USA in 2019. So this concerns US works, and foreign works affected by the URAA. See Category:Undelete in 2019 for a (probably incomplete) list of works. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, do you have some really nice examples? --Gnom (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnom: Short answer - I do not. Our current plans are to promote the public domain in general. The most notable work that I have heard suggested is "Yes! We Have No Bananas" which is a song that may be racist. I have not even listened to this song and do not know what it is. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
w:1923 in art, w:1923 in literature. Bambi, Robert Frost's New Hampshire, H.G. Wells' Men Like Gods.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An article for the Atlanic gave some big examples https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/04/copywritten-so-dont-copy-me/557420/ . I kinda like seeing multiple Jules Verne & Gaston Leroux English translations also entering U.S. public domain in 1923. I'm the most active editor on w:2019 in public domain so if you need me to pitch in on anything, let me know. Abzeronow (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is extremely helpful, Abzeronow! The Pilgrim is certainly something people may have heard of. Which works by Bela Bartok is the article in the Atlantic referring to? And which other works could we use in our communications? --Gnom (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Violin Sonata No. 1, Sz. 75 https://imslp.org/wiki/Violin_Sonata_No.1,_Sz.75_(Bart%C3%B3k,_B%C3%A9la) & Violin Sonata No. 2, Sz. 76 https://imslp.org/wiki/Violin_Sonata_No.2,_Sz.76_(Bart%C3%B3k,_B%C3%A9la), both published in 1923. Other works that were published in 1923 include "Murder on the Links" by Agatha Christie; "Tarzan and the Golden Lion" by Edgar Rice Burroughs; "Doctor Dolittle's Post Office" by Hugh Lofting; "Cane" by Jean Toomer; "La Prisonnière" by Marcel Proust; "The Prophet" by Kahlil Gibran. Abzeronow (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One 1923 work that comes to mind is the silent film Safety Last!. (With regard to movies being published versus unpublished (public performance does not constitute publication under US copyright law) and other copyright issues that can apply to movies (such as preexisting music included in a movie), the information in the English Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Public_domain#Movies may be of interest.) --Gazebo (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of English Wikipedia Day page

See

I am recruiting for participating organizations now. Again, I am encouraging a theme of combining Wikipedia Day, Public Domain Day, and the 15 January 2001 registration of Creative Commons on the exact day and year of Wikipedia's establishment. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which works?

This article list a number of works which become public domain next year. Do we have any other lists of things to be uploaded, not just undeleted? Rmhermen (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can check the Life + 70 list on w:2019 in public domain for artists whose works become public domain in EU countries and other Life + 70 countries (For Russia, it would be safer to wait until 2023 for names of that list and for Spain, you'd have to wait until 2029). w:1923 in art also would have works that would be newly free of U.S. copyright and/or URAA. (Always check the nationality and death date of the artist before uploading to Commons, of course) w:1923 in film would have a good list of American films that could be uploaded. Category:Photographers and artists who died in 1948 is also a good starting list for 2019 uploads too. Abzeronow (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum to above: w:List of American films of 1923 and corresponding Commons category Category:Films of the United States, 1923 would also be a great place to populate uploads related to such films. Abzeronow (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to categorise mass deletion requests with different undeletion dates?

Please take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Felix O It's a very complicated DR with many different countries, types of media, etc. Therefore there it makes little sense to categorise them in one "Undelete in XXX" category, but placing it in all available ones seems to be an overkill as well (at least to me). Is there something like Category:Mass deletion requests with different undelete dates? If there is no such thing should we create it or am I missing why it's a bad idea? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I'll start putting the file names directly in the Undelete in 2XXX categories and put what license it would fall under in that year. Should only take me a few hours to do. Abzeronow (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have completed that except for a few iffy cases that might be kept. Abzeronow (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gone Postal: an alternative would be to put the DR in the earliest undelete category and have whoever undeletes at that point re-list it, but generally I would (unless somebody actually splits it like Abzeronow did) list it on all undelete categories. But as Majora said, once it was discovered that the original rationale wasn't going to work the DR itself should have been closed and smaller DRs started. (yes, I made the same mistake with The Huntington. I didn't know at the time.)- Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Applied for Wikimedia Foundation grant - seeking comment and support

See

Since March 2018 I have been Wikimedian in Residence (meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network) at the University of Virginia. Among other things I organize collaborations with the library. Some notes on my projects are at meta:University of Virginia.

In the above proposal I am assisting some librarians, researchers, and our copyright lawyer in requesting US$15,000 from the Wikimedia Foundation in the November 2018 call for projects as described at meta:Grants:Project. With this money the library would, in summer 2019, develop a tool kit and event package for more libraries to celebrate Public Domain Day and to incorporate Wikimedia engagement into their program. We will be hosting a Public Domain Day event of our own with Wikimedia engagement in January 2019 to get experience before starting the grant funded project.

If anyone can sign to support then I appreciate that. If anyone has comments of any kind please post to the talk page. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for the Study of the Public Domain has their Public Domain Day 2019 page up

https://law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2019/

List is more U.S-centric. A few authors listed won't become public domain in their countries of origin for at least few more decades (Christie, Churchill, Wodehouse) but gives a great general idea of what is going to become public domain in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abzeronow (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 November 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

State of the Thing

Hey people, new year will be in 3 days. Whats the state of the affairs now? If everything is ready, maybe we can proceed with the necessary changes and adaptations for good old PD-1923.-- Darwin Ahoy! 12:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DarwIn: Based on the previous discussion on this page, it looks like we'll be using {{PD-US-expired}} instead of {{PD-1923}} for any newly-uploaded expired media. It's just a redirect, so there's no need to replace existing uses. There was less discussion on the naming for other "1923" templates like {{PD-old-auto-1923}}, but it seems most reasonable to follow the same scheme as suggested by Alexis Jazz (e.g. {{PD-old-auto-US-expired}}). BMacZero (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resources for 1923 publications?

While several media outlets have announced works entering public domain on Jan 1, 2019, and lists such as 2019 in public domain, List of American films of 1923, and 1923 in literature can help determine what enters public domain, is there a database of actual sources to help facilitate transfer of texts and images to Commons and elsewhere? A quick and dirty Internet Archive search yields 1923 publications (with the caveat that works published outside the US may not necessarily be in public domain) and HathiTrust has a list of 1923 publications (currently non-viewable, but hopefully that will change in the new year, and the same caveat as before). If any one else has links to high resolution/high quality source scans and other databases, maybe we can post them here, or start a list on a sub-page. Cheers, --Animalparty (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All en FU images in an article in a category named "1923 ..."

Obviously not all of these will be public domain, nor is this going to be an exhaustive list, but I ran a query for all fair use images used in an article that is in a category that starts with "1923", e.g. "1923 films". Care needs to be taken to make sure that it is a US publication before doing anything with this ... and some of them aren't publications at all ... but at least it is somewhere to start. --B (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of files

Probably a "who cares" question, but what time does this start?

Midnight GMT (in 45 minutes)? Midnight Server Time (Eastern Standard Time), in 5 hours and 45 minutes)? --B (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are two issues: 1) Can you distribute something by uploading it to a server? 2) Can the server distribute it? The first is in Florida, so it's Eastern, but somebody who is very aweful can potentially sue (but will probably lose) the actual user who lives in Alaska or Hawaii and was a couple of hours too early to upload something. Even if such a lawsuit were successful the damages would be only hours of distribution time and for something that was almost public domain... I think that almost every judge who has a yota of self-respect would dismiss such a case. But I am not a lawyer. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 03:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion to be perfectly legal in all 50 States was to use 10:00 UTC (midnight in Hawaii and the Aleutian Islands), but one could push it to 11:00 UTC or 12:00 UTC for ships at sea.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Public_Domain_Day&oldid=333009582"