Talk:List of films in the public domain in the United States/2013

US Copyright catalog
The lack of entry in the US Copyright Catalog is not alone sufficient to determine a film's copyright status (or lack thereof). There is no authoritative database for this type of thing. Not that it matters because for Wikipedia purposes, scouring that database and making a determination on our own is considered WP:OR (original research) of a WP:PRIMARY source. We rely on secondary sources, what other experts say. We are not the experts, we report on what the experts say. For example Film Superlist is a reliable secondary source. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

House on Haunted Hill
Apparently, Warner Brothers has been issuing DMCA takedown notices to certain parties about this film, so there appears to be a legal dispute over the Copyright status of this film. I recommend that we stick to our principals and use experts writing in reliable secondary sources, not anon Wikipedian's doing original research in government databases. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not original research if the reference to the government database entry is provided. Additional info including the contextual notation can be provided in the citation. This info can be a note that is visible when editing so that it doesn't clutter up the non-editing view of the article.AnimeJanai (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well lacking entry in the online government database doesn't mean Public Domain. It is original research (ie. synthesis) to reach that conclusion. For example maybe the script or the music are still copyright. Maybe the original rights holder is still claiming copyright for whatever reason. Maybe the record was never digitized but is still valid in the paper records at the LoC. This is a difficult subject for Wikipedia to handle, thus we stick by the rules of being a secondary source encyclopedia: if a reliable secondary source says so, we can and should report that. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Internet Archive
This is an open thread for talking about Internet Archive (IA) as a reliable source for Public Domain status.

Here are some facts:


 * 1. IA allows anyone to upload any content they want. Such users may be anonymous.
 * 2. IA uses a trust-based system to allow the uploader to assign a license to the content. IA does not check or verify that the license is accurate.
 * 3. IA does not take responsibility for content on its servers. It will respond to take-down notices, but it does not actively look for pirated content on its servers. It takes a blind eye unless pointed out.

Given these facts IA is not a reliable source for determining the copyright status of a work. In fact, it's an extremely unreliable source, worse than Wikipedia (which has some user-based verification and voting mechanisms).

It is also useful to understand that there are financial rewards for small companies who wish to distribute pirated content for money on DVD under the guise of it being "public domain". They will use IA to create a veneer of authority to the claim of PD status. They may also use Wikipedia to that end. It is valuable for them to build a story around a work being in the PD. Thus, we need to be vigilant about ensuring any such claim is made only when there is a reliable source, such as a film expert who has no financial connection and is able to justify the claim. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur with this. I have seen films not in the PD uploaded to Internet Archive so it should never be taken as proof a film has fallen out of copyright. Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * They do have volunteer experts who are able to resolve the PD/not PD question in many cases but I don't know how often those experts screen uploads. In most ways that's no different to PD works stored on Commons or Project Gutenberg. They did however argue quite a unique interpretation of law for some works that would really need to be tested in court before I would be convinced the way were interpreting it correctly. Can't quite recall but I think it was an argument that because film wasn't specifically copyrighted in early UK works (like Hitchcock before he went to Hollywood)  the retrospective copyright acts couldn't apply to those works at Life+70 (and hence the works were PD both under UK law and the URAA). I asked the UK Intellectual Property Office to respond to the claim and their argument was that each frame was a separate photograph and still protected as that which seems a bit woolly as the later acts make a clear distinction between film and photograph and don't apply retroactive extension to the items they define as films. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I see two use case issues here: 1) Claiming that a film is PD, and citing IA 2) uploading the film to Commons under a PD license. (1) places no burden or risk on WMF, because we're citing a source, no big deal. (2) does place burden/risk on WMF. Now, I happen to disagree in degree, but not fact, with Cardamom: IMHO IA is not as bad as, say IMdB, as a source about copyright. Going forward, I'd agree with, wherever a PD claim is made, and IA is cited, tagging that with unreliable source, and listing IA as a poor source in WPFILM guidelines. I wouldn't support wholesale deletion of such citations, without effort by the deleter to find a better source. But that's just me. --Lexein (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Further, Cardamom, there is financial incentive since before the days of IA for medium and large distributors to rerelease PD titles and then claim copyright on their release, effectively trying to relock otherwise out-of-print PD films into copyright again. (*Cough* Disney) This muddies the waters pretty badly. This doesn't let IA off the hook, but they're not as bad as represented here. --Lexein (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The Library of Congress seems to have no problem with IA. Flag_of_Virginia.svg Wodenhelm (Talk) Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg 06:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * All they do is link to IA as a resource that has some PD films, which is accurate. LoC is not endorsing every film on IA as being in the PD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

US Govt Copyright database
An editor recently added two films and claimed they are PD because


 * "For any work published after 1977, a lack of registration in this database confirms public domain status. See Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, Cornell University."

However this is not accurate. While the lack of a registration suggests it might be PD, it does not confirm. The rights holder may still be making a claim. There may be other rights holders such as the script or music score. The registration record might exist on paper but not digitized in the online database. There are any number of possibilities. That is why we don't do our own original research scouring databases trying to determine on our own accord what the copyright status of a film. It's an art, it's complicated, it's hard, it's expensive to accurately determine the status of a work. Thus on Wikipedia we use reliable secondary sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Starburst Magazine
Starburst Magazine (example) is not a reliable source. They appear to have looked through Internet Archive and found some films and written about those films as a magazine article. Internet Archive is not a reliable determinate of the film's copyright status. Starburst has done no research on its own and is not really a reliable source being only a few years old Internet magazine that has no credentials in film studies, or copyright research. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)