Talk:List of films in the public domain in the United States/2017

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The New York Times sources providing "the reason for entering the public domain" are dead links

I have come across the sources of the following films only to find out that they are dead links, which is why I have removed them from the list:

Perhaps it would be very suitable to replace these dead links with archived sources from the Wayback Machine. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

NYT was never a very good source to begin with on this subject (at least one case where it was wrong). Thanks for removing should have been done a long time ago. -- GreenC 02:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
You've removed a large number of films other than these listed here, some incorrectly. It might have been better to have added a [dead] note to the citation as opposed to just removing the listings... For example: here you remove God's Little Acre saying it's not mentioned in the source. However, looking at the source it says under the section selected that the black and white God's Little Acre is under public domain according to a copyright lawyer at Stanford. I haven't looked with any scrutiny at the rest of your changes, but it seems they were done with a little too much haste. BigMittens (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Hitcher vs. Candyman and BigMittens. It would be more of an improvement to the list if you attempted to find sources for the films instead of just removing them. Wikipedians are too willing to "take the time" to "improve" an article the lazy way of just deleting someone else's work and not willing enough to take the time to improve an article by actually doing any work to improve it themselves. If you see an item needs a source then why not find one, or at least request one, rather than just deleting information? Huggums537 (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
We do find reliable sources, evidently (see the article). What makes you think not? You can add anything into the article that is well sourced. Until then, we are maintaining an article that is reliably sourced, per policy. The article has a long history of editors adding anything and everything under the sun with no or bad sourcing. A lot of work has been done to make it reliable. Please don't undo it by adding bad or poorly sourced entries. -- GreenC 15:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Evidently, "we" don't find reliable sources. What makes me think not? You do. You said yourself, "The article has a long history of editors adding anything and everything under the sun with no or bad sourcing". Apparently, "we" don't find reliable sources for other people because "we" think it's easier to maintain an article by deleting content than it is to find a reference for someone else's poorly sourced content. Also, adding a new entry should never be seen as anyone "undoing" the article if one has good faith, even if the editor is adding poorly sourced material. The better approach would be to assist the editor in finding better sources since this would improve the article and the editor. Huggums537 (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that entries shouldn't be removed purely on the basis the source has died, but it is quite legitimate to remove an entry which has been added without an adequate source. Per WP:BURDEN it is the responsibility of the person adding content to ensure it is reliably sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
You are correct. However, at the very bottom of WP:BURDEN it states, " If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.", and provides a link to WP:PRESERVE. Huggums537 (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Since this page is providing the legal status of copyrighted works it is important to ensure that it is correct. If somebody has a source at hand then it would be great if they add that source instead of deleting the entry, but it can take substantial effort to locate an appropriate source and it is not reasonable to expect another editor to spend time cleaning up after someone else. If it is a straight revert—rather than a manual removal—then the Wikipedia notification system will notify the original editor and then it is is up to them if they want to put the effort into correcting the situation. Betty Logan (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
You made some very valid points. However, if an editor is willing to "spend the time cleaning up after someone else" by removing poorly sourced entries, then why wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that they would continue "to spend time cleaning up after someone else", and make a minimal effort to find a source since they are already "cleaning up after someone else"? Huggums537 (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I rescind all of my previous arguments regarding this article, as I realize they do not belong on this particular talk page (but they are valid elsewhere). I concede that Wikipedia:Copyrights rules take priority in this article, and that all violations of Wikipedia:Verifiability should be removed from this article immediately. Huggums537 (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"The Screaming Skull" and "Teenagers from Outer Space"

An anonymous editor has removed these two films several times now, despite both entries being source.

In the case of The Screaming Skull, according to the American Film Institute the film was never copyrighted in the first place. It is irrelevant if a later release slapped a copright notice on it sinc eyou cannot retrospectively copyright a work. The copyright notice would have only have protected new elements added to the release.

In the case of Teenagers from Outer Space, that is sourced to an entry stating that it entered the public domain in 1987 when the copyright was not renewed. This can be verified at the Copyright Catalog where there is no record of a renewal. Email correspondence with a purported copyright owner does not trump a reliable source.

Neither film should be removed again unless a verifiable source is produced that disputes the public domain status of either film. Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, in the United States of America at least, you can retroactively apply copyright which is precisely what happened in 1998. Everything, whether copyrighted or not was opted into the copyright system and there is no way to opt out. Further, under the 1998 law, works are copyrighted as life of the author plus 75 years. This applies to all works made all over the world as far as the USA is concerned. You can't just not have copyright protection anymore and anybody that allows others to use their works can resend that permission at any time, unless bound in some form of contract. Even then, it is on the parties claiming to have the right to use the works to prove it. Before 1994, you were correct. After 1994, it doesn't work that way anymore. To be clear, you are always opted into copyright, you can't opt out, and registration or renewal no matter what year no longer affects copyright. This Wikipedia entry[1] does a decent job of explaining. This is about the 1998 law specifically which expanded upon the 1994 law that began the process. Interestingly, this resulted in a lot of works being pulled out of public domain which the Supreme Court upheld. In fact, the Supreme Court went further and declared that any work in the public domain can be pulled out by act of Congress for any reason and without recourse. They effectively shut the lid on ever revisiting the issue through the courts in Golan vs. Holder[2] I didn't remove these items, but I believe this represents sufficient coverage that they are not public domain. The person that deleted these entries was representing the letter of the law. I think including this information somewhere in this article would effectively prevent this issue from occurring. Why isn't it in the Judicial Interpretation section? Nick F. S. 47.150.179.151 (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Both of these films were released in the 1950s and at that time there was no automatic provision for copyright and you could not retroactively apply for copyright either. The provisions of the later laws do not apply to American films that had already entered public domain (this is not true of foreign films because of the URAA). In other words, if neither of these films were copyrighted at the time of release—and subject to US copyright law—then they are not under copyright now. If they were copyrighted, then their copyright would have needed to have been renewed for them to be still under copyright because that is the law that applied at the time. Betty Logan (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I have to agree with Betty Logan here. The two films in question should remain for the reasons stated above. Huggums537 (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
  2. ^ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-545.pdf

Born to Win

The source merely says the film is "on the public domain DVD circuit". This isn't the same as "the film is Public Domain". It's not uncommon for PD vendors to sell first and wait for take down notices. If being distributed by PD vendors is the bar for inclusion this list could be 10x longer. PD vendors are not a neutral or reliable way of determining PD status. -- GreenC 02:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Isn't Born to Win (1971) part of the film library of United Artists? I was under the impression that most United Artists films released following 1952, currently belong to Metro–Goldwyn–Mayer. Ted Turner apparently purchased MGM's own film library in 1986, but chose not to keep United Artists' film library.

The MGM article specifies that the company still owns the film library of United Artists. Based on the external sources:

  • "Although the MGM library was sold to the Turner Broadcasting System in 1986, the company has a library of 1,500 films from United Artists, the Cannon Group and MGM films since 1986."
  • United Artists "is now jointly owned by MGM, Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner". Dimadick (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The official website of MGM lists Born to Win as one of the films in their library. Dimadick (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Good find. With that I've opened a deletion discussion at Commons. -- GreenC 01:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Green. The source only makes a suggestion that the film is in the public domain. This is not the same as establishing it in the public domain with credible information. Maybe if the editor could provide two (or more) sources that make the same suggestion, then it would be more convincing? Also, the facts presented by Dimadick seem to suggest that the film could still be partly owned by MGM. However, this is not the same as establishing that Born to Win was one of the 1,500 films in the United Artist's library transaction, because if Born to Win is in the public domain, then I would think MGM has every right to include it in the film library on their website. Huggums537 (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
If MGM has just as much right to list public domain films on their website as anybody else does, then we can't assume they own the copyright to all of those films just because it's on their website. For all we know, they could have many public domain works listed, or even listings from other copyright owners with whom they have purchased a license. Also, the film could have entered public domain status even if it was one of the 1,500 involved in that transaction. The bottom line is that we have no real evidence either way. The source for it being public domain is flimsy at best, and the evidence for it being copyrighted is only circumstantial so far. The discussion should be about finding better sources. That's the real trick, isn't it? Huggums537 (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I found a reference showing MGM as the latest distributor of the current release. [[1]] It also shows other distributors for fairly recent previous releases. The running time is different for each one on the list, and the one nominated for deletion. This leads one to consider if each release could have been slightly modified in order to copyright the resulting modification. It also still leaves the question as to the public domain status of the original release. I could not find a reference to establish public domain. Perhaps a more experienced editor can. Huggums537 (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Moved from article

Please note that the inclusion criteria for this list are not sufficiently defined. The presence of an article in this list does not indicate that the film is necessarily in the public domain. Each entry needs a precise verifiable citation to prove, as far as possible, that the film is in the public domain, and in which country. There are films here that may be only public domain in the United States but still copyright in their country of origin. This list may need to be renamed "Public domain in the United States", or otherwise have its inclusion criteria precisely defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84user (talk • contribs) 17:35, 25 May 2009

I'm attempting to address this issue via an edit[[2]] per "detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead". However, I encountered some initial resistance due to the technical presentation of it being incorrect. I edited it several times until the technical presentation was correct and then encountered some other concerns. I'm currently engaged in a lengthy, but enlightening, discussion on this page to resolve this issue. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Linking to WP:Notable

It's unclear the list should use the NOTE guidelines to exclude films. The NOTE guidelines are typically used for topic-level discussions such as AfD not for list inclusion, though it has been done. Anyway it's unclear it's a good idea to exclude a film just because it doesn't have a Wikipedia article available, why do that. Also, it's unclear that linking to Wikipedia policy and guideline documents in the main text is appropriate. It might work in stand-out box or something that are meant for editorial guidance. -- GreenC 15:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I clearly showed a guideline indicating an appropriate edit [[3]] per "detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead". You offer no reference to anything for the removal of my edit other than your opinion that "this isn't a list of only films that meet the notability guidelines we never established that as a criteria". However, the list contains only notable films, and therefore, establishes itself as a list of only notable films. I am only stating what has already been clearly established. I am reinstating my edit per the guideline I provided for placing it there. Please make a clear reference as to what policy or guideline for which you base a removal before you do so. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:CONTEXTLINK establishes the link is appropriate in the "main text". Also, WP:BTW says, "Consider including links where readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads". Huggums537 (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Huggums537, you've now reverted 3 editors (User:Hitcher vs. Candyman, User:Betty Logan, myself). Whatever you think your justification, it's not getting much support. We don't normally link to policy/guideline pages in the main text much less the first sentence. I've never seen that done and CONTEXTLINK and BTW say nothing about linking to non-mainspace guidelines in mainspace. Also, there is no clear consensus that this article is restricted to content that meets NOTE which is typically used for article topic not article content. You are creating a criteria that never existed for this article before. -- GreenC 18:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Nothing anywhere says anything about policy/guidelines in the lead, but I cited references showing that links, within the manner of context of the topic, and for the purpose of detailing criteria for inclusion are recommended in the lead. No offense, but I have only your word telling me, "we don't do that here", whereas I'm providing everyone with the actual guidelines stating that it's recommended for me to do this here. There is continuing insistence that no such criteria exists, yet there is ample evidence in the long history of the article to establish that notability is a criteria for inclusion. Not to mention that the list itself is, and always has been, notable films only. My reversions with the other editors were for technically different reasons and I believe this version of the edit should satisfy the concerns they had about it. I think my only remaining task is for us to be able to come into an agreement on the subject. Please review the history and let me know if you feel any differently about the issue. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The relevant issue is linking non-mainspace articles in mainspace. There are a number of documents that discuss it. First is WP:NOTPART which provides a high level view that policies and guidelines are not part of the encyclopedia, they are not integral to the text of the encyclopedia. More specifically it's self-referential to link to internal Wikipedia pages see SELFREF which says "..referring to Wikipedia policy or technicalities of using Wikipedia should be avoided where possible". In this case the word "notable" is being used in the common sense not for the Wikipedia guideline. The word notable here is just a way to limit certain types of additions as judgement requires like self-published independent films no one has heard of, or porn films etc, but it doesn't limit from including films arbitrarily based on NOTE guidelines which are more restrictive. -- GreenC 21:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTPART doesn't really apply here since it is a reference to how "pages themselves are not part of the encyclopedia proper" and makes no mention anywhere that "they are not integral to the text of the encyclopedia". It is clear that the general intention of the section is to show that the policy pages follow different rules than the encyclopedia pages. It's a bit of a stretch to imply that the intended use of NOTPART is to prevent the usage of policy within the encyclopedia. Also, according to WP:SELF, "A self-reference in an article usually mentions Wikipedia directly", and my edit does not mention Wikipedia directly. If my edit had said; The list is limited to Wikipedia:Notability films only, then we would have a self reference issue, but my edit does not directly mention Wikipedia in such a way. This should be sufficient to comply with SELF. I can't really argue about your quote that "..referring to Wikipedia policy or technicalities of using Wikipedia should be avoided where possible". You have made a rock solid point here that I can't argue my way out of. My only rebuttal to this is that I see no other way to avoid it and perhaps my numerous other rationalizations will be enough to justify overcoming this single obstacle. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
If it's a self-referential mention, or self-referential link, it's still self-referential. The way to avoid it is not set a hard red line that films *must* meet the NOTE guideline which limits our options. I know you still want to use it, but the list has no precedent of using the NOTE guideline for inclusion criteria. Please make a case for it. The question is, why would we choose to exclude films (that don't meet NOTE)? Sometimes NOTE is used for list content when there are so many applicants they need to be filtered out. But in this case if anything we need more films .. the problem has always been lack of reliable sourcing to determine PD status, the purpose of the list. The NOTE criteria shouldn't stop anyone from including films that otherwise have sourcing to show PD status. But it can still say "notable" in a common way to prevent certain things if they come up. -- GreenC 01:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, I actually did find an argument to support my edit in WP:SELF where it states, "Similarly, many list articles explicitly state their inclusion criteria in the lead section". This sentence is from the paragraph about acceptable self-references. Also, it feels a little weird to play devil's advocate here, since I actually agree with your whole point of view about NOTE. Nevertheless, WP:CSC should be enough to make the case for the opposition to our point of view, where it states, "...notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists...", "Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever.", and "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia.". Please bear in mind that I do agree with you and the only reason I am making this case is that you require it of me for the continued inclusion of my edit. The case is fairly strong, and I wish you had not asked it of me since I am now questioning my previously firm position on the subject. However, it should prove worthy of substantiating the edit. Huggums537 (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
You may be asking yourself that, if I believe the same way you do, then why would I be so determined to keep an edit that seems to contradict what we support? Well, I think it's easier to change one edit than to change the mindset of a whole community, for one. Do you really think that if I were to drop the issue of this edit and band together with you on the inclusion issues, that it could really make a difference in the way the community thinks about and does things? Maybe you are more optimistic than I am, but it doesn't seem very likely to me that we would garner much support. I do take comfort in the fact that at least one other person shares my viewpoint. However, I have practically resigned myself to an "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" attitude, which consists of placing an "call 'em as I see 'em" edit. The article is what it is, and has been for so long that perhaps it was never meant to be the way we envision it could be. This is why I would rather fight for a simple edit than attempt to buck a long established system and get a whole section of a community all bent out of shape for nothing. Maybe I'll take on the establishment after I get 200 edits under my belt. Huggums537 (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I know I talk a lot, but I also wanted to add that forcing me to make a case for the opposing viewpoint has had the benefit of allowing me to see for myself first-hand that there actually is a valid basis for any list to allow Wikipedia articles only. However, a closer inspection of WP:CSC reveals that this is not the only option for lists and it doesn't have to be "only Wikipedia articles allowed" just because it can be. Now I've said too much because I'm not supposed to be making your case for you, I'm supposed to be supporting the inclusion of my edit, but if it's possible for me to do both simultaneously, well then... Huggums537 (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I feel confident that I have already provided more than adequate support for the inclusion of my edit, so I am going to rest my case on that subject and help you build your case on the topic of inclusion. WP:CSC states, "the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles", "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future.", and "Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria:". So, we see that there are more options for inclusion available to us and if red links are a concern to anyone, then the entries could always be listed as comments instead, provided the listing is accompanied by proper verification. Green, I feel as you do that more allowance could mean the inclusion of more properly sourced films here. I hope these arguments help your cause and I hope maybe it can get the standard changed one day, but unfortunately for us, the current standard seems to be "only Wikipedia articles allowed". Ironically enough, the fact that we "plead our case" strongly suggests that there is a marked difference between what the consensus actually is, and what we think it should be. We are clearly in opposition to a notability standard, but if that standard were not already established, then there would be nothing for us to oppose. Therefore, my edit warrants merit based on the current standard, regardless of the fact that we oppose that standard. Huggums537 (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment There are two issues here, the first obviously being the link and the second being the inclusion criteria. I will deal with the link first. As Green Cardamom points out above MOS:SELFREF strongly advises that "referring to Wikipedia policy or technicalities of using Wikipedia should be avoided where possible". Hiding the policy reference behind a piped link and claiming you are not referencing the policy is not only disingenuous, it also violates WP:EGG, which states "Per the principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link." Clearly linking to a Wikipedia policy where "notability" carries a very specific meaning and not to the article "Notability" (which is what readers would expect from the link) is obviously in breach. Secondly, to my knowledge no specific inclusion criteria has ever been discussed for this article i.e. there is no explicit consensus on what to include and exclude. There appears to be a "working consensus", in that the list appears to be limited to films that have articles here on Wikipedia. That is a much tighter restriction than films that meet Wikipedia's notability criteria because there are probably many hundreds of films in the public domain that meet the notability criteria but don't have articles, and none of them are listed here. So therefore the existing consensus is in reality films that have articles on Wikipedia, but that is only a "working consensus" (i.e. one that reflects the current state of the article) and not a mandatory consensus that has been arrived at through discussion or consideration of policy. In view of that I have changed the link, and if this article is going to have a hardline inclusion criteria then it should be formulated here on the talk page first. Betty Logan (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Betty Logan, your version of the edit seems reasonable to me and I'm ok with leaving it the way you have it. But, please don't insinuate I'm "hiding" behind a piped link, and claiming that I'm not self-referencing. This unduly makes me appear to be dishonest. However, I forgive you for this oversight because I did a lot of talking, and you may have missed the part later on in the discussion where my ultimate claim was that it is an acceptable self-reference per WP:SELF where it says, "Similarly, many list articles explicitly state their inclusion criteria in the lead section". This sentence is from the paragraph about acceptable self-references. Thank you for compromising with me on this edit. Huggums537 (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
It would be easy for me to accuse you of being dishonest because your link does not "explicitly state inclusion criteria", and appears to "hide" from the acceptable references of what the inclusion criteria is. But, that would be highly inappropriate, and unacceptable behaviour on my part. Also, I would be wrong for making that implication since it is clear from your statements that your intent is not to deceive anyone. I could also argue that my link is more honest since it acceptably self-references a page with a section directly related to the topic of inclusion, which is WP:LISTN. However, you still have a point with WP:EGG, and I have already thanked you for your compromise with me on that with the acceptance of your version of the edit. I just felt compelled to further defend myself about the honesty issue. Thanks in advance for your understanding. Huggums537 (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I know I have already accepted the link as it is, but I was thinking about this idea of "least astonishment" and it seems to me that with my link, a reader would be more likely to see that the list is limited, then quickly realize why when they click on the link to the notability guidelines. From a reader perspective, It would be more astonishing to read that the list is limited to notable films and then see that there are films "nobody has ever heard of" on the list. However, the general reader can easily figure out limited=Wikipedia guidelines by clicking on my link. So, there shouldn't be any astonishment. Huggums537 (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realize I should continue to persevere with my edit. Your claim that the reader expects to see a page on notability, is a generalisation, that may be true in broader terms, but not in this specific context. Within this context, the reader expects to see what notability has to do with the limitation, and my link clearly outlines exactly what they would expect to find in relationship to the limitation. No surprises here. Your link is actually more in breach of being astonishing than mine is for previously stated reasons. So, I think it would be better to reinstate my edit to let the reader know the limitation is based on guidelines, not "films of fame". Huggums537 (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
If indeed the inclusion criteria were limited to films that meet Wikipedia's notability criteria then the inclusion criteria in the lead should probably read "The list is limited to films that meet Wikipedia's notability criteria" or something to that effect to avoid the WP:EGG link. However, as I already pointed out above this article does not have any explicit inclusion criteria. It has never been discussed and therefore no explicit consensus exists to include some films and exclude others. Currently this list only includes films that have an article on Wikipedia, so perhaps it would be more appropriate to simply state "All films included on the list have an article on Wikipedia", as a description of content, but not as mandatory criteria that a consensus does not exist for. Limiting inclusion to films that meet Wikipedia's notability criteria is just one of many criteria we could apply; we could simply insist that a film must have an article (meaning films that meet Wikipedia's notability criteria would be excluded if they do not have an article) or we could simply permit any professionally produced film in the public domain (meaning that films that don't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria would be eligible for inclusion). Either way, if we are going to have mandatory inclusion criteria for this article then it will be selected via discussion and consensus, not by a single editor's unilateral view. Betty Logan (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
You agreed there is a "working consensus". Since this is true, then it's not a single editor's unilateral view. It's our view and it's the implied view of the editors who've applied the working consensus from the beginning. Consensus is still consensus. I see no evidence otherwise. A mandatory inclusion discussion is not needed unless you want to change the working consensus. In the meantime, it's perfectly reasonable to post something reflecting the current working consensus. I suggest we use your idea of "The list is limited to films that meet Wikipedia's notability criteria" because it describes the current working consensus and it avoids the WP:EGG. You can always change it later to reflect the new changes when a new consensus has been reached. But, then we can't do that can we? Because it doesn't reflect the working consensus, which is "wikipedia articles only" and nobody wants me to post that, not even me. Huggums537 (talk) 07:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I disagree this article should use NOTE there is no consensus for that. I disagree there was ever a "working consensus" there is no evidence of that in the talk page history or edit history. It evolved that way like we have no films starting with "Z", it's random the films all have Wikipedia articles. So you know I have basically been here since the (re)start in 2011 when the list was completely redone and know the history of this article, your claim that this article reflects a consensus is inaccurate and unsupportable. -- GreenC 12:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
If there is a "working consensus"—and it is more of a "practice" than a consensus because the issue has never been discussed—then as Green Cardamom points out that is mostly due to natural evolution rather than editors enforcing an inclusion criteria. I can't remember a single instance where somebody has inisted on removing a film because it is not WP:Notable. Enforcing such a criteria may even be harmful to the development of the article i.e. it may end up excluding many old films which may struggle to meet WP:Notability. The simple fact is most films on the list will have an article because most famous films have articles, and PD status is easier to locate for famous films than it is for obscure quota quickies. However that is not a good enough reason IMO to exclude a film that is not WP:Notable should we happen across its PD status. If this list were to become overwhlemed at some stage by obscure films that are not WP:Notable and thus making the list unwieldy and WP:INDISCRIMINATE then we would have to rethink our position, but personally I think our goal at the moment should be getting more films onto the list not coming up with ways to keep them off. Betty Logan (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I have already conceded that we can't, and shouldn't use NOTE due to the fact that it doesn't accurately represent what appears to be the working consensus. However, for Betty Logan to suggest in the edit summary [[4]] that, "The sentence "a non-definitive list of films in the public domain in the United States" IS the inclusion criteria" isn't good enough. That is only a description of the list, and isn't "explicit inclusion criteria". You can't just make up any criteria you want and call that the inclusion criteria. It must be in accordance to Wikipedia standard. I have no idea which standard you claim supports that to be the inclusion criteria. Why don't I know? Because it isn't explicitly included in the lead. Huggums537 (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
It's a list of PD films, that's the criteria. There is no such thing as a "Wikipedia standard" for list criteria every article sets its own by consensus. Not only can we make up criteria, that is how it is supposed to work. You're pointing to WP:LISTN but don't seem to understand what it says. WP:LISTN concerns topic level ie. the topic of the list has to be notable. It further says the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.. -- GreenC 15:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia standard for list criteria called WP:CSC. (I mentioned it earlier) I've already reiterated that I'm no longer pointing to NOTE and LISTN is a part of NOTE. So, we already covered that. Green, you said you have a lot invested in this article and you seem to have the support of Betty Logan regarding your combined reasons for keeping my edit out of the article. If it's really that important to the both of you, then I'll just keep my edit out because it doesn't really need to be there anyway. I was contemplating what my original goal was when I intended to see this edit stick, and I remembered that my only real purpose was to give the reader some notice as to why the list is limited. Betty Logan got me thinking when she pointed out the list was non-definitive. I realized the article goes beyond that. It also tells the reader it's limited by saying, "This list is not comprehensive; the vast majority of public domain films are not included here for various reasons.". It even goes so far as to mention this twice. Plus, it explains (in a way that doesn't make any sense) why there are no films prior to 1923. So, the article does a fine job of giving notice to the reader that there are limitations without my edit needing to be there. There's no point in arguing about the article lead qualifying as "detailed criteria for inclusion" if it's functioning decently. Therefore, the rational thing for me to do is make a more productive contribution elsewhere. However, I do still have a thorn in my side on the debate about consensus. Green, you deny any working consensus exists, while Betty Logan seems to maintain that a discussion must occur before any consensus is arrived at. All along it has been my assertion that the history of an article and it's content are enough to establish consensus. According to Wikipedia, consensus can be achieved merely through the act of editing alone. "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia." See WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Also, "consensus can be presumed to exist" prior to any discussion. "You find out whether your edit has consensus when it sticks, is built upon by others, and most importantly when it is used or referred to by others.", "Most of the time, you will find that it's fine to assume consensus...", and "The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is." See WP:SILENCE. So, we see the natural evolution of an article IS the consensus and discussion is only one among many forms of consensus, but not the only one. Huggums537 (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
CSC is a guideline and is pretty clear that it's not universal, no guideline is. There are many articles that don't follow CSC. Any contested application of a guideline has to include a reasoned argument why it applies to the specifics of that article. Our arguments are already stated: there are not many films that contain reliable sourcing for PD status so it is already a highly discriminate list; the problem with the list is not too many entries but not enough; we don't want to exclude films arbitrarily for those reasons. You haven't addressed any of those points other than to say "because the guideline" which is circular reasoning. Yes it's a guideline, but guidelines are not binding laws. As you well know, since you were prepared to ignore SELFREF (which is not a common thing to do BTW). Ultimately if your concerned about consensus than just start an RfC. All this about editconsensus and silence is a weak form of consensus compared to directed and lengthy talk discussions, particularly when there are reverts involved. Silence is the weakest form of consensus. -- GreenC 12:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, good. I'm making a little progress. At least you were willing to acknowledge that WP:SILENCE is consensus, even though it may be the weakest form of consensus. "That's only a guideline" is not a good argument by WP:ONLYGUIDELINE. In addition, your supporting arguments are in reference to NOTE, which (I keep repeating myself) was dropped earlier. Please don't suggest I was preparing to ignore SELFREF, as this unduly misrepresents my actions. I made it very clear I was claiming acceptable SELFREF. Honestly, I don't even know what an "Rfc" is, and even if I did, I wouldn't waste my time with it since my conclusion that the edit is not needed here remains the same. However, I would like to know what's up with that description in the "Films" section about excluding pre 1923 films. Is it just me, or is it truly vague as to why the pre-1923 films are excluded? Huggums537 (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Prior to the 1998 copyright extension act a film's maximum copyright term was 75 years, therefore no American film released prior to 1923 could still be under copyright as of 1998. If we listed PD films released prior to 1923 then every American film released piror to this date would be eligible for inclusion, which truly would make the list indiscriminate. The act added 20 years to the term which means that films released in 1923 will remain under copyright until 2019. Once we get to 2019 then presumably the cut-off date for this list will become 1924. This is all explained at List_of_films_in_the_public_domain_in_the_United_States#Date_of_publication but if it is not clear we can try to add some extra clarification. Betty Logan (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I understand it very clearly the way you just explained it. Makes perfect sense. I just didn't get that from the article. Thanks for clearing it up. Huggums537 (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
However, the information in "Films" appears to conflict with the info in "Date of publication". The reason I say this is because "Date of publication" indicates all pre-1923 films are indisputably (automatically) in the PD based on CTEA. While, "Films" suggests that pre-1923 have gone into PD for other various reasons. I think this could attribute to part of the confusion as to why it seems unclear. Huggums537 (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:ONLYGUIDELINE is an non-consensus essay for WP:AfD discussions (one of the worst essays on Wikipedia confusing editors for years). It doesn't apply here for a number of reasons, not worth getting into unless someone thinks it's required. -- GreenC 00:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Green, you left yourself wide open for this. Since you proclaim I dabble in circular logic, and since I have a good sense of humor..."one of the worst essays" shouldn't be used according to WP:ONLYESSAY. Haha, I'm sorry, I just had to. I couldn't resist. I hope you see the comedy in it. Huggums537 (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
But, seriously though, I do see how WP:ONLYGUIDELINE wouldn't apply since it's meant for WP:AfD. I didn't think about that. So, you're right, it's kind of confusing. Huggums537 (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I just did a quick search on what an RfC is, and I'd like to RfC on opinions about my observation that there is conflicting info between the sections, "Films" and "Date of publication", regarding pre-1923 films. Any takers? Huggums537 (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Please direct your answers about the pre-1923 films to a new section I'm creating for the topic. It will be called Pre-1923 films. This section is getting way too long and drawn out. So, I think a new section for the new topic is in order. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Pre-1923 films

This section is for the ongoing discussion about pre-1923 films. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a proposal for a rewrite of the "Films" section to clarify why the pre-1923 films are excluded from the list. It doesn't seem to be clear since there appears to be a conflict of information between the "Films" and "Date of publication" sections. Where the latter indicates the films automatically entered the public domain under the CTEA, and the former suggests they went into the PD for various other reasons. I'm inclined to agree with Betty Logan that the information in the "Date of publication" section reflects the more accurate and clear understanding of why the films entered the PD. However, neither section clearly explains exactly why they are excluded, only why they are in the PD. The way it was explained to me is that they are (understandably) excluded in order to keep the list from being indiscriminately lengthy, but the "Films" section doesn't project this message in any way. Huggums537 (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Ok, I just edited my version. I think it's very clear and concise. I hope everyone agrees. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I've tightened it up slightly but have retained your explanation as to why pre-1923 films are not listed. Betty Logan (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for collaborating. Huggums537 (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Studio and distributor abbreviations

Is there any point keeping this section in the article? With the exception of MGM (which is best known by its acronym) none of the abbreviations are actually used elsehwere in the article. Is this a legacy section that has outgrown its usefulness? If so are there any objections to me deleting it? Betty Logan (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete: I agree it seems to have no useful purpose and it creates that unsightly white-space problem to boot. The only acronym on the list that would require the legend to interpret it is, "VCX" (Debbie Does Dallas), and "VCX" isn't even listed in the legend of abbreviations. Huggums537 (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Image of PD mark Suggestion

I have an idea to spruce up the page a bit. How about an image of the official PD mark to occupy some white-space, like next to the contents or something? Any thoughts? Huggums537 (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Why would the article have the Creative Commons PD symbol? It's not an official or agreed on PD symbol outside the context of Creative Commons, and the list doesn't really discuss Creative Commons. -- GreenC 03:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, I was thinking it would be there because of the connection between PD films and the mark which denotes PD works? However, if it doesn't seem reasonable to you, then perhaps you could suggest another image we might want to include? Huggums537 (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
It would be great to have an image. They are supposed to be functional not decorative, it should tie into the text in some way. If there was a screen cap from a PD film that was discussed in the main body of the text (not the list) that might work. The image caption might read something like "The film's copyright frame does not include a valid copyright notice, as seen here, thus placing it in the Public Domain". Charade (1963 film) is a film like that. -- GreenC 21:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. That sounds like a good idea, but I don't see any films being discussed in the main body of the text. I only see mostly the determination of PD status being discussed, that's why I felt the PD mark would fit in well. Any other suggestions? Huggums537 (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The image visually demonstrates lack of a copyright notice, which is discussed or should be discussed in the text. According to MOS:IRELEV Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. -- GreenC 02:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I understand, that's why I'm asking if maybe you have any other ideas? Huggums537 (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

An image frame from a PD film showing the copyright screen with a missing or malformed copyright notice. Most of the images here could be used. -- GreenC 04:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for the interesting link. I noticed on your user page that you somehow know how to place an image exactly where you want it to go on the page, and I've never actually inserted an image in an article yet. So, I was wondering if you would be willing to assist with this idea? I have learned some basic wiki markup and done some slight table modification, so I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to figure out, but it would be much easier with your help. My first questions would be, which image would you prefer to use, and should we consider choosing an image that doesn't have a very lengthy description of why the copyright was invalidated? Huggums537 (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The more I look at these images you sent in the link, the more I like your idea. I'm excited to see how it will look on the page...Huggums537 (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I like the New 3 Stooges image with the closeup showing lack of claimant's name. It's color and clearly shows the text. It's two images. To get the images into Wikipedia.. download to your computer, log into commons.wikipedia.org and follow directions for file upload including giving the source as https://chart.copyrightdata.com/ch02.html and describing "copyright notice does not list a claimant". It should go on Commons since they are PD images. After uploaded let me know I'll take a look and we can work on placement. -- GreenC 16:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, great choice. Those were my favorites too. I got them uploaded and they provided me with some links. I'm not sure which ones we need, so I'll post all of them.
  • [[5]]
  • [[6]]
  • Screenshot of copyright notice that doesn't contain a claimant.
  • Screenshot of copyright notice that doesn't contain a claimant.

Well, that didn't turn out the way I expected, but I guess I just inadvertently inserted my first images into a page...Huggums537 (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes that's how to do it. Optionally add a "left" or "right" to align on the left or right side. Not much else to it. -- GreenC 00:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. That's so easy. I couldn't figure out the left and right thing, but luckily it defaulted to the right like I wanted it to. I did a rough draft in my sandbox. Does it look ok to you, or do you think it needs refinement? Huggums537 (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I got excited and couldn't wait to add the new images. So, I decided to be BOLD and implement my rough draft into the article. I reverted my sandbox to it's previous state just in case anybody still cared about some shading refinements in casting tables from another discussion. Thanks for your help on this and let me know if we need to do anything else. Huggums537 (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Created a section for missing/incomplete copyright notice and moved the images there since that is what the the images help to illustrate. Added the source. -- GreenC 18:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. It all looks great! I like what you did with the "Expanded view". I didn't realize we were allowed to modify that part, but it's good you did. I also didn't know images required references, but either way, it's very helpful in this case. Do you have any suggestions on what kind of images might like to live in the contents area to occupy some of that white space? Huggums537 (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The source is useful in this case since it's asserting something that someone could conceivably challenge. Often a picture caption is a literal "This is a picture of XYZ" which doesn't need a source. The website this picture is from has other pages. Maybe explore it a bit for more images? Maybe search for books about PD films, see what they use for cover art for some ideas. -- GreenC 23:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you mean now. I guess I never really considered someone would actually challenge them, but you're right, it is conceivable. Also thanks for the ideas about finding images. That shouldn't be a problem. I suppose my main concern is if it would be appropriate to put any kind of images in the contents area? Huggums537 (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this being updated?

Every year, theoretically, film works should be entering in to the public domain. There are so many laws about it that has made this obsolete but I wonder if anyone here at Wikipedia is monitoring this. If so, can you chime in and detail your experience? It would be nice if we can find a team of people who are finding works that are legally in the public domain in the US at least and start from there. SweatyFeet (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Theoretically no US copyrights will expire until January 1, 2019, when all copyrighted 1923 works will enter the public domain. Thereafter works will be released from copyright on an annual basis with 1924 works entering the PD in 2020, 1925 works in 2021 and so on. However they won't be added to the list; the threshold for inclusion will be simply raised to 1924 and then 1925 and so on. As for post-1923 works that are already in the public domain as a result of already expired copyright or never having been copyrighted then these are added when they are discovered. If you look at the page history you will see that films are periodically added. Ultimately though in post-1923 cases addition is usually dictated by availability of sources. Betty Logan (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Unless something radical changes with politics in the USA, it seems likely they will pass new law extending copyright beyond 2019. That's IMO but fits a pattern. The copyright owners (Disney etc) are powerful, and the Republicans are generally not supportive of free culture and public domain as a matter of ideology. -- GreenC 13:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Then again Trump has to sign off on these bills and he is no fan of Hollywood! Betty Logan (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The Copyright Term Extension Act was signed in 1998 by Bill Clinton, a Democrat. SweatyFeet (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You can find more information on the current legislation in the article Copyright Term Extension Act: "This law, also known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny Bono Act, or (derisively) the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, effectively "froze" the advancement date of the public domain in the United States for works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this Act, works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still protected by copyright in 1998 will not enter the public domain until 2019 or afterward (depending on the date of the product) unless the owner of the copyright releases them into the public domain before then. Unlike copyright extension legislation in the European Union, the Sonny Bono Act did not revive copyrights that had already expired.". Dimadick (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I searched a bit more about American public domain through an external link: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

  • Unpublished works enter the public domain 70 years following the death of the author. As of 2017, all such works whose author died before 1947 have entered the public domain.
  • Unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous works, and works made for hire (corporate authorship) enter the public domain 120 years following their creation. As of 2017, all such works created before 1897 have entered the public domain.
  • Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known, enter the public domain 120 years following their creation. As of 2017, all such works created before 1897 have entered the public domain.
  • Works registered or first published in the United States with a publication date earlier than 1923 are all in the entire domain. The copyright has expired.
  • Works registered or first published in the United States, with a publication date between 1923 and 1977, but published without a copyright notice, are all in the public domain. The owners have failed to comply with required formalities.
  • Works registered or first published in the United States, with a publication date between 1978 and 1 March 1989, but published without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years, are all in the public domain. The owners have failed to comply with required formalities.
  • Works registered or first published in the United States, with a publication date between 1978 and 1 March 1989, published without notice, but with subsequent registration within 5 years are not in the public domain. They will enter the public domain 70 years after the death of author. If they are a work of corporate authorship, they will enter the public domain 95 years following publication or 120 years following creation, whichever expires first.
  • Works registered or first published in the United States, with a publication date between 1923 and 1963, published with notice but when their copyright was not renewed, are all in the public domain. The copyright has expired.
  • Works registered or first published in the United States, with a publication date between 1923 and 1963, published with notice and the copyright was renewed, are not in the public domain. They will enter the public domain 95 years following their publication date.
  • Works registered or first published in the United States, with a publication date between 1964 and 1977, published with notice, are not in the public domain. They will enter the public domain 95 years following their publication date.
  • Works registered or first published in the United States, with a publication date between 1978 and 1 March, 1989, created after 1977 and published with notice, are not in the public domain. They will enter the public domain 70 years following the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, they will enter the public domain 95 years following publication or 120 years following creation, whichever expires first.
  • Works registered or first published in the United States, with a publication date between 1978 and 1 March, 1989, created before 1978 and first published with notice in the specified period, are not in the public domain. They will either enter the public domain at the greatest possible term specified for similar works, or (at the earliest) on 31 December, 2047.
  • Works registered or first published in the United States, with a publication date between 1 March, 1989 and 2002, created after 1977, are not in the public domain. They will enter the public domain 70 years following the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, they will enter the public domain 95 years following publication or 120 years following creation, whichever expires first.
  • Works registered or first published in the United States, with a publication date between 1 March, 1989 and 2002, created before 1978 and first published in this period, are not in the public domain. They will either enter the public domain at the greatest possible term specified for similar works, or (at the earliest) on 31 December, 2047.
  • Works registered or first published in the United States, with a publication date after 2002, are not in the public domain. They will enter the public domain 70 years following the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, they will enter the public domain 95 years following publication or 120 years following creation, whichever expires first.
  • Works registered or first published in the United States, at anytime, prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties, are all in the public domain. They were never under copyright.
  • There are different conditions for works first published outside the United States, and the author/s are either foreign nationals or American citizens living abroad. Dimadick (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Home (2009 film)

Yann Arthus-Bertrand flat out said that his 2009 documentary Home has no copyright on a TED talk video filmed in February 2009. Since the film is available on YouTube and the Internet Archive, should Home be added to the list? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Being available on Youtube and the Internet Archive does not necessarily mean it is in the public domain. His comments need qualifying. It may not be under copyright in France but creative works don't need to be copyrighted to be under copyright in the United States; it is an automatic thing. I am not sure you can create a non-copyrighted work in the US any more. You may have to explicitly release the work under a Creative Commons licence, and even then it wouldn't technically be in the public domain. I think we would need to consult an expert on copyright law. Betty Logan (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
He said the film "have <sic> no copyright" but according to the wiki article "a copyright notice appears in the final credits". I suspect it's a problem with poor English. He goes on to say the film is "given for free" and "there is no business on this film" ie. they are not charging money and freely distributing it, is what he is trying to convey. I would give weight to the copyright notice on the film until new information comes available. -- GreenC 01:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Peter Rogers Organization list of PD films

PRO is a TV distributor that has been around a while. They maintain an approximate list of PD films, though not reliable on its own could be the basis for researching other sources for certain films listed. -- GreenC 02:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe worth adding as an external link. Betty Logan (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I also found a site hosting many newer films that's been around since 2006 which also has some useful info on their disclaimer page: https://www.freemoviescinema.com/disclaimer/ It's probably also not reliable on it's own, but could possibly be a starting point for adding newer films to the list... Huggums537 (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
II can see a few 1930s British films on there that are most definitely not PD in the US due to GATT. I don't think it can be counted as reliable for anything. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Nick Cooper, I've already stated it's not a reliable source on it's own. I merely pointed out that it provides links to other reliable sources and could be useful as a starting point for further investigation of newer films to add to list. It's reliable enough for those purposes. I never suggested citing it as a reference in order to add newer films to the list. I apologize if my comment wasn't clear. Huggums537 (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The War Game

What about The War Game? I imagine that this film is unknown in the USA, but it is better known in Britain. There is a copy at the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/TheWarGame_201405

I don't think that it was ever copyrighted. It was made for the BBC but the Corporation then tried to suppress it as too disturbing. Epa101 (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

No British film released since 1957 can be in the US public domain, unless it was released in the US without compliance with US copyright registration procedures. Copyright in the UK was automatic from 1957 onwards, and since both countries are signatories to the Berne convention that means it is protected under US copyright law for 95 years. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Obviously, the film has been released in the U.S. without compliance with US copyright registration procedures since the Internet Archive is based in California. However, this article rejects the Internet Archive as a reliable source for adding films since anyone can upload films to that database. This article requires more reliable sourcing from other 3rd parties to include films to the list since copyright is such an important issue. Huggums537 (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Eh? Just because something is uploaded to the Internet Archive doesn't mean it is in the public domain. Anyone can upload content and there have been many instances of copyrighted material being uploaded. If it hasn't been taken down it is because the copyright-holder doesn't know about it or doesn't care, neither of which translates to being in the public domain. If we are to accept that The War Games is in the public domain then we need to establish through reliable sourcing that it was indeed released in the United States without compliance with US copyright law. Betty Logan (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Multiple questionable David Pierce and Stephen Fishman sources. Comment

I was considering adding a film to the list. So, I decided to check the other sources of the films on the list to see what is usually acceptable as a reliable source, and I repeatedly found these same sources for multiple films on the list that contain nothing else but a name, date, and some page numbers. However, not one of these sources includes any other publication information such as the title of the publication or the name of the publisher. How can these be considered as reliable sources for so many films on this list? Here are links to all the questionable sources I found:

That's all of them. The vast majority are David Pierce sources (whatever that means), with only two being for Stephen Fishman. However, both sources reference multiple films for each citation! I'm wondering if the publication information somehow got lost during the history of the article due to some past vandalism which never got caught, or if the sources just slipped through the cracks unnoticed, and remained there unchallenged until now. Either way, I would appreciate some input from some more experienced editors on the matter. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That should be all them this time. Any input is appreciated. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The article uses the short footnote system. The full citations for the Pierce books are in the bibliography. Betty Logan (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Wow. I feel pretty dumb right now after all the effort I put into this when such a simple explanation was just sitting right there at the bottom of the article. What an unintuitive system the short footnotes are which require either special knowledge, or thorough examination of the article just to get the full citation information! It would be a great improvement to the system if the short footnotes pointed to the bibliography section in the same manner that the individual citations within the article link to the specific references in the reference section. That way readers could click on links next to the short footnotes in the reference section which would take them directly to the full citation in the bibliography. No special knowledge or thorough examination required. Also, I noticed that the article doesn't use the short footnote system exclusively, as there appears to be an equal mixture of usage between citation systems. Anyway, thanks for enlightening my obviously intermediate understanding of citation systems. Of course, that won't won't help me now, seeing that I've just lost all of my street cred due to the fact that I apparently didn't know what the bibliography was for. How humiliating... Huggums537 (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The footnotes can be linked to the citations using the {{sfn}} template. I'm guessing the person who added the films and the citations didn't know how to do it. Betty Logan (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm the editor c. 2012 when {{sfn}} was still somewhat new. It would make sense to convert. -- GreenC 02:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm impressed. You guys have an answer for everything! I feel much better about bringing it up now because it resulted in improvements to the article even though it started out as a rather unsophisticated observation on my part... So, thanks guys! Huggums537 (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. It seems to me I remember something being mentioned about a bibliography in grade school. It was a very long time ago, but it's all coming back to me now... Yes, and a glossary! And... an appendix! A table of contents! There was some kind of talk about an index, and a preface. I think I read a book! That's right, I did. I remember now. I read a book! Thanks for the memories Wikipedia! Huggums537 (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

100 PD films

This reliable-looking source (essay from a book) asserts the 100 films included in Action Classics 100 Movie Pack (Mill Creek Entertainment, 2007) are US public domain. The film titles: 

1. Bail Out 2. Beyond Justice 3. Black Raven, The 4. Born to Win 5. Boxer, The 6. Cape Town Affair, The 7. Cat O' Nine Tails 8. Code Name Zebra 9. Cold Blood 10. Cold Room, The 11. Corrupt 12. Crime Boss, The 13. Cross Mission 14. Cry of the Innocent 15. Dangerous Summer, A 16. Death Collector 17. Death in the Shadows 18. Dominique 19. Escape From Sobibor 20. Five Minutes to Live 21. Forest, The 22. Hollywood Man 23. Julie Darling 24. Kill Cruise 25. Killing Affair, A 26. Lady Gangster 27. Lucifer Complex, The 28. Manipulator, The 29. Master Touch 30. Midnight Cop 31. Millions 32. Mitchell 33. Murder Once Removed 34. Mysteries 35. Night of the Sharks 36. Night They Took Miss Beautiful, The 37. Paco 38. Paper Man 39. Power, Passion and Murder 40. Rogue's Gallery 41. Seducers, The 42. Sell Out, The 43. Seven Doors to Death 44. Sphinx, The 45. Squeeze, The 46. Stoolie, The 47. Swap, The 48. Target of an Assassin 49. Tattered Web, A 50. Woman Hunter, The 

1. Beloved Rogue, The 2. Beneath the 12-Mile Reef 3. Bird of Paradise 4. Black Book, The 5. Bloody Friday 6. Bloody Wednesday 7. Border Cop 8. British Intelligence 9. Bulldog Courage 10. Captain Scarface 11. Capture, The 12. Cold Sweat 13. Dangerous Passage 14. Desert Commandos 15. Desperate Cargo 16. Devil's Party, The 17. Drums In the Deep South 18. East of Borneo 19. Fast and the Furious, The 20. Funeral for An Assassin 21. Great St. Louis Bank Robbery, The 22. Jack London 23. Jail Bait 24. Last of the Mohicans, The 25. Manhunt 26. Mr. Robinson Crusoe 27. Mr. Scarface 28. Mutiny 29. My Boys Are Good Boys 30. My Outlaw Brother 31. Outpost in Morocco 32. Port of New York 33. Prison Break 34. Project: Kill 35. Ransom Money 36. Submarine Alert 37. Sundown 38. Swiss Conspiracy, The 39. Sword of Lancelot 40. Tarzan and the Green Goddess 41. Tarzan and the Trappers 42. Tarzan's Revenge 43. Trained to Kill USA 44. Tulsa 45. Under the Red Robe 46. Uranium Conspiracy, The 47. White Orchid, The 48. Who Killed Doc Robin? 49. Wildcat 50. Winterset

Any thoughts if this source is reliable for list inclusion? -- GreenC 01:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be reliable looking at quick blush. I haven't yet taken a detailed look at their claims, but I did notice they provided sources and that's a good sign. Plus, they appear to be possibly affiliated with a university of some sort, which is another good sign. I'd have to actually take a close look at everything to be sure though. Huggums537 (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
While Mill Creek undoubtedly package PD films, I am not convinced every film they sell is PD. For example their cult classics pack contains a handful of films from the 1990s, and I can't see how films from the 90s could possibly be in the public domain; no registration or copyright notice was needed by this point. In their company blurb they talk about "content partners" (which include Sony, Disney and Warner) so it could well be the case that they have licensed some of their films. Obviously Millcreek won't highlight which films are PD because it would devalue their product, and it would actually be a good business model for them to stick a licensed film on each disk and then they can sue anybody who pirates the disk. Betty Logan (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
As the Will Straw article says:
The single factor most determinant of the price of the “Action Classics 100 Movie Pack” is the fact that, seemingly without exception, the films contained within it are in the public domain, at least in the United States.
Which film(s) do you suspect from the above list are copyright? Given an example, I can research it and maybe find additional info. -- GreenC 15:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Let's take one film that jumps out at me: The Cat o' Nine Tails (I am presuming it is the Argento film); it is not at all clear to me that it is in the US PD. This is an Italian film and therefore if it is under copyright in Italy the URAA would have pulled it back into copyright in the US. I guess what I am asking is what does he mean by "seemingly"? Is he making an assumption about all of them on the basis of what he knows about a few of them or has some form of verification been undertaken? Betty Logan (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
This is an Italian film. The Straw article:
Observers have noted that the public domain status of certain non-Hollywood films, like the Italian “spaghetti Westerns” of the 1960s and 1970s, is often recognized only in the United States. Films whose copyright is still in force in Europe fell into the public domain in the U.S. as a result of the failure of companies to follow prescribed registration procedures in that country. While efforts to restore the copyright status of these films in the U.S. have been underway for over a decade etc..
This is confirmed for example Death Rides a Horse[7]. Is this information inaccurate or outdated? -- GreenC 17:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I have no expertise or legal background in copyright, but foreign films under copyright in their native countries would still seem to be under copyright in the US according to https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain: "Published in the US more than 30 days after publication abroad, without compliance with US formalities, and not in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996 (but see special cases) – 95 years after publication date". I might be wrong, but I don't see how a 1970s Italian film under copyright in Italy as of 1996 can be in the US public domain as of today. Betty Logan (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
So that provides a set of criteria and a special case - doesn't it seem possible that, occasionally, there are films that fail to meet those criteria or special case? That is exactly what the Straw article says: "as a result of the failure of companies to follow prescribed registration procedures in that country". -- GreenC 19:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
The Cornell criteria lists the "special cases" below, which effectively amounts to a list of countries that are not protected. Italy is not among them, and nor would it be because it is a signatory to the Berne Convention. Therefore if a 1970s Italian film was under copyright as of 1996 then it is under copyright in the US today as far as I can tell. The only way it can be in the US public domain now is if it was in the Italian public domain in 1996. It might have been—I don't know anything about Italian copyright—but I don't see any justification in that book for why these films are in the public domain. On what premise is it stating these films are in the PD? Is it getting the information from Mill Creek? It is just assuming they are? Has it undertaken its own research to ascertain the copyright status on each and every one of these films? To put it another way that essay also states "Because the films contained on Mill Creek’s boxed sets are in the public domain, available for commercial release by anyone who might have a copy, there are no rights costs to be paid", which is clearly not true because some of the box sets—such as the cult set—also include American films released in the 1990s, and it is not possible for them to be in the PD yet. Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I see what you're saying and will drop the Mill Creek 100 as a group. The fallacy made by Will Straw is that distribution for free is the same as public domain. But PD means no legal rights. The same mistake was made by film owner Yann Arthus-Bertrand in the thread above where he conflates PD with free distribution. This appears to be a common enough problem in the sourcing... -- GreenC 00:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Well look, if you took it over to the RS noticeboard I suspect they would probably rule the source reliable. It looks like a scholarly source which falls into our highest classification so policy wise you are probably entitled to add the films using this source. If you choose to do that I won't remove them on the basis of the above discussion. However, I think we could compromise on this and maybe exercise some caution by either holding out the non-American titles, or alternatively add a note to the foreign titles linking to https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain#Footnote_10 and noting that may still be under copyright due to the URAA. I just think we should exercise some caution because I would hate to see somebody get sued because of something we stuck on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I still haven't taken a close look at the source yet, but there is one more thing I like about it which is the fact that it is based on a published work (the book) and that is another good sign. However, I was not able to determine if the essay is a published work itself or just some original research posted online which is based upon the published work. Although it might be difficult to call the essay original research when the research has already been done in the published book and posting content online with academic affiliation often qualifies as published material. Is it the essay that is published or the book? Or both?
It's in the book. There's a link to the Table of Contents with the essay listed near the end. However Betty's points are well taken as research on the first couple films 1. Bail Out 2. Beyond Justice suggests they may not be PD, the author of the essay is confusing distributed-for-free-but-copyright with Public Domain. It raises questions of what criteria this list takes and how conservative it is. If the list had the criteria that the reason for PD must also be included that would solve most of this problem, but it would eliminate about 25 films from the list. -- GreenC 14:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I see. The essay is a published segment of the book's contents. I was thinking it was a separate work. I think we all agree it's a quality source according to Wikipedia standards, but might not win every copyright case in federal court! The idea Betty had to compromise with caution is probably the safest bet. Huggums537 (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC) P.S. I really like the idea of providing the reasons as to why these films have gone into PD, but if making that feature a requirement for inclusion means dropping 25 films then, UGH! One last thing to defend a technical detail about the source: Betty Logan, you made a statement earlier about the source appearing to provide us with some untrue information. Here is the quote: "To put it another way that essay also states "Because the films contained on Mill Creek’s boxed sets are in the public domain, available for commercial release by anyone who might have a copy, there are no rights costs to be paid", which is clearly not true because some of the box sets—such as the cult set—also include American films released in the 1990s, and it is not possible for them to be in the PD yet." Maybe it seems at first like you have made an accurate assessment, but maybe not since the copyright date on the essay (2013) pre-dates the copyright date to the cult classics pack you provided for us earlier in the conversation. So, it's entirely possible that the statement the source made was true as far as they knew at the time they wrote it. Huggums537 (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comic book about public domain

I found this comic book made by legal/PD experts designed to explain PD. Huggums537 (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_films_in_the_public_domain_in_the_United_States/2017&oldid=1136939846"