Template talk:PD-old-100

Untitled
It is a bit perturbing when there is a major change to a template that has already been applied to many articles. -- Infrogmation 07:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

People looking for accurate copyright status on media tagged with this template need to look at the date the template was applied to the media, and to the version of the template in history that existed at that time. Some articles correctly tagged in accordance with eariler versions of this template are of a copyright status that is contrary to the current version. Also, some editors tagging images may have used this template in accordance with the earlier version at later dates if they were unaware that the text and meaning of this template had been changed. -- Infrogmation 16:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Uh, 100 plus or 100 minus?
This template is (currently) in the "Author died more than 100 years ago" category, but the template says "100 years or less." What should this be? Seems like a bad wording anyway. &mdash;User:Mulad (talk) 17:48, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it could be worded better, but as I read it there is no contradiction. Author of the work has to have died 100 or more years ago, in order to be public domain in all countries which define public domain as being by someone who died at least 100 years ago. For example, it is public domain also in countries which require author to be dead at least 70 years. -- Infrogmation 06:38, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The main problem I'm referring to is having it in Category:Author died more than 100 years ago public domain images. If someone died 70 years ago, you don't want them to be in the category for people who died 100+ years ago, IMHO.    &mdash;User:Mulad (talk) 03:37, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course someone who died 70 years ago is not in the category of people who died 100+ years ago. I'm sorry I'm having trouble understanding what the problem you see is. Do you have a suggested rewording, or perhaps we could bring the matter up somewhere else for more people to look at? -- Infrogmation 04:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There was no contradiction, and now the template is incorrect. The template should say, effectively, that in countries that provide copyright until 100 years or less after the author's death, the work is in the public domain.  To have the template applied, the author should have died 100 years or MORE ago.  If they died less than 100 years ago, the work is not in public domain in all countries.~ I am fixing the template now.  If you object, explain why. Superm401 | Talk July 1, 2005 01:07 (UTC)

Rights to the photographic copy
The fact that the actual photographed object (e.g. a map, book, picture etc.) is in PD does not imply that the author of the photography does not hold his copyrights for it. In other words a recent reproduction of an object does not have to be in PD even if the object itself is. Lysy 01:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * For "slavish reproductions" of 2D art, it actually does in the US and probably the UK too. There's not sufficient originality for copyright. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. PRiis 21:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki link to vi:
Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:

vi:Tiêu bản:PD-old

Thanks.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

100 v. 70
Hephaestos changed 100 to 70 in the template. I reverted this, primarily because this is a protected template and there was no discussion. However, we also already have a template (PD-old-70) for images that are only 70+ years old. There is no need to eliminate this template; the distinction could prove useful later. Also, if we were to do so, we should redirect not duplicate. Superm401 - Talk 03:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Cite U.S. law. This is ridiculous; there is no U.S. law that I've ever heard that claims 100 years. Hephaestos&#124;&#91;&#91;User talk:Hephaestos&#124;&amp;#167;]]
 * You're correct that US law has 70. However, 100-year old images are public domain in the US.  This is noted because US law is what matters here (servers are in Florida). Superm401 - Talk 03:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Then why do we have two seperate templates: 70 and 100? TeunSpaans 19:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a few countries (Argentina and I think Armenia or Georgia) which have Life + 100 copyright terms. If the media was published there, then it could still be under copyright and hence be under copyright HERE. This is just a way of saying (Assuming it's correctly applies), that the file is beyond even the most lengthy copyright. 68.39.174.238 04:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * On Wiki Commons the same discussion is held: . Currently, Wiki Commons only has the 'PD-old' Template for 70 years. The text of that Template is: "This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years." Wiki-uk 14:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Widely misused template
I've been seeing many examples of this template continuing to be misused (for example, being put on an image 100 years old when the author did not happen to die immediatly after creating the image). What the hell is going on here? Are people still using the template based on the former radically different meaning for "PD-old" here on Wikipedia of a few years ago, or is there something in the wording of the template that challenges some people's reading comprehension, or is it some slew of deliberate vandalism? Perhaps we should get rid of this misused template all together? -- Infrogmation 19:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, copyright expires in the US after the author's death, then 70 years. This template however mentions 100 years, so it is probably a case of people not reading the template before using it... or perhaps people reading it but not understanding it. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I had a sort of stoke attack when reading this template, i thought that copyright was extended, please better specify this in template :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.220.110.172 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia
Please add interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is: sr:Шаблон:ЈВ-стара Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 06:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Added, thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

interwiki link
Please add th:แม่แบบ:PD-old for interwiki link. Thanks --Jutiphan | Talk  - 05:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A [[:mk:Шаблон:Јд-стара]] interwiki please. Thanks. --iNkubusse? 07:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Y Done – { { Nihiltres | talk|log } } 12:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, add Georgian one too - [[:ka:თარგი:PD-old]]. Thanks --Rastrelli F (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please revert
editprotected

Please revert Haukurth's recent edit to this template. Works are in the public domain in the United States either 70 years after the death of the author OR if they were published before 1923 or one of the other cases documented at Template:PD-US. This template is now highly misleading. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * All right, I reverted myself. But I think the template is more misleading now since it heavily implies that the US has some sort of 100 pma rule which it distinctly doesn't. In my opinion every PD image should have a tag documenting why it is in the public domain in the United States. Haukur 08:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you elaborate on why you think my version was misleading but the previous/current version is not? To establish public domain status in the United States we must have a publication date. The death date of the author, so heavily emphasized in this template, is ususally only relevant for foreign authors. Haukur 08:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I take it back. I am not an expert on copyright law and based on I see that publication date is highly important. My apologies; you can change it back. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just an amateur too and I'm open to any suggestions for a clear wording. My idea was to move towards a system where every image had a specific PD-US tag in addition to information on time since author's death (which is highly important for reusers abroad). Maybe that's not the best way to go, I don't know. Any reform is hard since most image description pages are severely lacking in data. Most don't have a publication date, many don't have any clear information on the author, often the source information is very incomplete. In any case I think your Doc subpages are quite helpful. Haukur 21:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Mistagged PD-Old and PD-US images
It appears that the vast majority of PD-Old and PD-US photographs are mistagged, due to a lack of information about who created a photograph or when it was first published. I'm not sure whether these should be deleted or not, and I've opened an RFC here. Opinions and ideas would be most welcome -- just go to the RFC and comment there. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit request
Could an admin that sees this change image to file? Audio files also use this, File:United States Navy Band - O Canada.ogg is one such example. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 6:05pm • 07:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2 February 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed request. Number  5  7  17:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:PD-old → Template:PD-old-100 – Inappropriate name. All files which are in the public domain because of age are old, but some of them do not satisfy this template. Also, Wikipedia mainly concerns itself about United States law, and users could mistakenly belive that a file which satisfies this template are in the public domain for Wikipedia purposes, but the copyright term in the United States is typically 95 years from publication, which could be either more or less than life+100 years, depending on whether the work was first published posthumously or not. Also, the "PD-old" template on Commons has a different meaning, so when a file is copied to Commons, there is a risk that the public domain reason unintentionally is changed. Stefan2 (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.