Commons talk:Anonymous works

File:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 09.jpg

The image has been used here for illustrative purpose of a proposed guideline or policy on commons.wikimedia. However it shows, originates from and refers to real people, crimes and events in 1943 at Warsaw. So I believe is is not possible to abstract from this real content and origin of the pciture in any meaningful way, e.g. by using it as an illustration for discussion on questions of copyright. Therefore removed it from the project page --Rosenkohl (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Where does this section come from? section 57 1988 which covers this says:

(1)Copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is not infringed by an act done at a time when, or in pursuance of arrangements made at a time when—

(a)it is not possible by reasonable inquiry to ascertain the identity of the author, and

(b)it is reasonable to assume—

(i)that copyright has expired, or

(ii)that the author died [F170 years] or more before the beginning of the calendar year in which the act is done or the arrangements are made.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/57

Geni (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think the section is based on some UK-copyright chart like this or something. The matters are harder than section 57 cited by you, because of the multiple transitional provisions of 1988 Copyright Act. Trycatch (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah yes after some bouncing around the relivant law appears to be http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Act,_1956_%28United_Kingdom%29/Schedule_2 .Geni (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

United States pseudonymous works

There is currently a line in this proposed policy that reads

As US law previously required a copyright notice and renewal in order to gain or maintain protection (which must contain the author's name and year of publishing), it can be assumed that anonymous works that did not comply with any of the country's formalities are automatically in the public domain in the United States.

Although that sentence doesn't strictly say it, the way the sentence is structured leaves the impression at first glance that pre-1989 anonymous/pseudonymous works all categorically fail compliance with pre-1989 U.S. copyright formalities and are therefore in the public domain. It definitely needs to be clarified that pseudonymous works (and, I believe, anonymous works) could indeed be registered, renewed, and given a proper copyright notice. For example, if I remember correctly, older copyright office advice explicitly told anonymous authors to put "Copyright 19xx Anonymous" (with the proper year for xx) on their works. --Closeapple (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"all creative works"

Shouldn't "all creative works" read "all newly made creative works" are "automatically subject to copyright protection". I am not aware of any jurisdiction giving retroactive protection to ancient works of art. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Sweden

What is the situation for Sweden, is it 50 years or 70 years or 90 years, for items made public before the year 1996? I believe they follow 70 years after 1996. I am getting contradicting information from other editors and none can link to an actual legal ruling. RAN (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

postcards

Most old postcards have no author names on them and are usualy published by big publishers who usualy buy the images by local photographers. Certainly in Europe these publishers didnt keep authorship records for the long term, or even the originals. Glasplates in the early period where expensive and demanded a lot of space to keep. The local postcards needed to be regularly refreshed with images. A typical example is Category:Nels/Thill postcards. The archives in Brussels where probably destroyed during the Second World war. There where other priorities then. If the archives still existed it would be a gold mine, wich would be commercially exploited. For myself I apply the following rules:

• Determine the age of the postcard. Postage data and content.
• If it is a big postcard publisher and there is no author name ---> anonymous
• By a small local publisher who only publishes postcards of a limited region, I assume he/she takes the pictures himself and is also the author. ---> not anonymous

(sometimes there are several generations in the publishers family, but it is dificult to be certain wich generation took the picture)

• If the picture is 1925 or older I use the PD-1923 licence. If the postcard is of local European village/or other local subject and later than 1925 but before 1950 I dont bother with the US license. (and nearly every other uploader) One can take all legal precautions, but this goes to far. By definition the images are no longer 'anonymous' as soon as an author makes himself known. 'anonymous' pictures are taken by someone who has probably already died, took a lot of pictures, have decendants who have no indiviudual recollections of the pictures taken and probably no archives or negatives to proof origin. The commercial value is very marginal. Certainly not worth the legal cost to go to the US. Keep in mind 'Anonymous-EU' is legal license in Europe.Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)