Most institutions seem to claim that permission is required to publish any of their photos of objects/paintings/photos/prints in their possession even if the original is out of copyright. Should these photos be used on Wikipedia, if so what license status should be noted as I cannot see an appropriate tag so perhaps a new tag is required? Also I assume these institutions do not say permission is required without some legal sanction being open to them if images are used without permission? see Image:Maurice Barrymore.jpg as an example (from the National Library of Australia [1] ) Arnie587 22:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

{{PD-old}} is sufficient in general, but for most countries it is necessary to note the creators death - it will be 70 years after usually, but noting date best. If it was made before 1922 irrespective of death you can label it as {{PD-art-US}} which is ok for en wikipedia (not commons). Sorry its not simple. So if you dont know death date, leave as much detail as possible and use the US tag. Thanks for asking. Justinc 23:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

sorry, if you didnt violate the museums permission personally, we dont really care, they cant claim copyright on 2D images with no creative input. 3D is another matter. Justinc 23:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

They can't claim copyright in the US, rather... okay, from our point of view these are the same, but it's an important distinction to remember. Shimgray | talk | 12:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Something that is almost always overlooked in these arguments is that if the photograph was never published ( “published” is generally taken to mean if copies have been made available to the general public, whether by way of sale or otherwise.) then it is copyrighted and that copyright continues indefinately. So many photgraphs held by libraries, museums and archives that are technically old enough to be in the public domain aren't since they were never published. That is why libraies, archives and so on can list these scans as copyrighted, images really need to be checked on a case by case basis since many old images probably aren't in the PD.-- nixie 01:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• This is not correct. Under U.S. copyright law, when a work was created before 1978 but never published, the copyright rights are only as long as the life of the creator + 70 years. [2] No copyrights technically continue indefinitely with copyright extensions written into law. -- Fastfission 04:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • There are still indefinite copyrights in Australia.-- nixie 04:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That wouldn't affect whether it counts as {{ PD-US}} on Wikipedia. -- Fastfission 04:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Note also that in Australia, the perpetual protection of unpublished photographs applies only to photographs taken after May 1, 1969. [3] [4] [5] For photographs not made or published in Australia, the period of protection is that of the country of origin. [6] -- Tabor 17:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thats is true, but worse varies by country. I think in many cases indefinite copyright has been revoked (eg indefinite Crown Copyright in UK, other than the King James Bible and a few other cases). Specific details of who the author is and when (s)he died really help, for all copyrights. Justinc 02:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your comments, I'm still not really sure on how I should tag the Barrymore image..? I would guess that it was sold in small numbers as I know that photos of actors and entertainers were sold to members of the public. I will write to the library as a matter of courtesy to ask for permission anyway. Arnie587 02:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've found this page to be useful for determining if something is still copyrighted or not. -- Carnildo 04:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that, so unpublished images of works by authors who died before 1935 are PD. However all the discussion above doesn't really answer my question about whether institutions such as museums, archives and galleries have some legal sanction on those who use out of copyright images without permission, if they haven't got a law to cover them why don't they just say these images are now in the public domain? Arnie587 11:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Arnie, there are many galleries, museums, and the like that try to limit reproductions of works in their collection even though those works are out of copyright. In general, the only real recourse they have under U.S. law is to limit access. If you are able to make a photographic copy of an out-of-copyright work, or if you find a copy from some other source, then there is no copyright claim. The access limitations can pose real problems in some situations, and museums take varying steps to discourage photography. They disallow tripods and flash, for example, and it's nearly impossible to make a good high-resolution copy without one or the other. As for the claim they make that copying "requires permission" -- it's FUD. Any photograph of pre-1923 flat artwork can be tagged PD-old here without difficulty. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your reply, sorry to go about this but I want to be sure I have your meaning correct. I note you say "if you find a copy from some other source" does that mean I cannot use the image from National Library of Australia website (here [7]), is it the case that their reproduction is copyrighted, and to use the image I will have to get someone to go photograph it or find another copy or can I just use the image as it is? Thanks, Arnie587 22:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I would say upload the image under {{ PD-old}} and put a note in the IDF to the effect: "The National Library of Australia claims copyright of the electronic version of this image: this claim is disputed." Physchim62 07:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Arnie -- in the United States, they have absolutely no claim to the copyright of a reproduction of a 2-D image for which the original copyright has expired. In Austraila or the UK, they might. Hence using the tag {{ PD-US}} on them -- specifying that in the U.S. (which is where Wikipedia is "published"), these are in the public domain. In other countries, different laws apply.

OK will do Arnie587 18:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

-- Fastfission 23:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC) For 2D artwork, such as paintings, that are still subject to copyright, do we have a tag that covers low-res reproduction for critical commentary on the work? Example: many of the articles on individual paintings in Category:Salvador Dalí -- Tabor 17:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we do. I have noticed a fair bit of artwork being claimed as fair use, and it is mentioned as a blanket category on WP:FU. Maybe we need a tag? JYolkowski // talk 18:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Remember that most images you find on the Web are not public domain, even if they list no explicit copyright information. Images only qualify as being in the public domain if they fall under certain specific categories described below — very old works, works by certain government employees, and works where an explicit disclaimer of copyright has been made in writing by the author.

• {{ PD}} - for when author has put into the public domain or the author died over 70 years ago (pre-1935). Consider first using the following subtags:
  • {{ PD-old}} - for images where the author died more than 100 years ago (1905). (Note: not where the work or image is 100 or more years old)
    • {{ PD-old-50}} - for images where the author died more than 50 years ago (1955). (Note: not where the work or image is 50 or more years old)
    • {{ PD-old-70}} - for images where the author died more than 70 years ago (1935). (Note: not where the work or image is 70 or more years old.)

These tags are used for an author to attempt to release their work into the public domain, disclaiming any copyright. However, if you use this, consider also using a license tag such as {{ CopyrightedFreeUse}}, in case this is ineffective in your jurisdiction; see Wikipedia: Granting work into the public domain.

• {{ PD-release}} - when the creator has made a statement releasing the work to public domain
  • {{ PD-link}} - a statement intended to release a contributor's own work into public domain and request an entirely optional link back to Wikipedia from anyone reproducing it
  • {{ PD-self}} - a statement intended to release a contributor's own work into public domain
  • {{ PD-user|username}} - a statement intended to release a particular user's own work into public domain by a Wikipedian

• {{ PD-art}} - for images of works of art where the artist died more than 100 years ago. But if the person or organization who digitized it has released it under another license, list that other license as well as this one.
  • {{ PD-art-life-50}} - for images of works of art where the artist died more than 50 years ago. But if the person or organization who digitized it has released it under another license, list that other license as well as this one.
  • {{ PD-art-life-70}} - for images of works of art where the artist died more than 70 years ago. But if the person or organization who digitized it has released it under another license, list that other license as well as this one.
  • {{ PD-art-US}} - for images of works of art published in the United States prior to 1923. But if the person or organization who digitized it has released it under another license, list that other license as well as this one.

• {{ PD-US}} - for copyright-expired images in the US (mainly those published pre-1923). Also for works not eligible for copyright under US law. (May be preferable in some cases vs. {{ PD-old}} for US-originating images.)