Template talk:PD-USGov/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Government seal instead of the C?

How about using the image to the right [image of the Great Seal of the US, since removed] instead of the C with a cross through it for this template? Seems more appropriate for this template. [unsigned comment by User:Tomf688]

You seem to have missed the reference above, indicating that it may be illegal to use the seal in this manner. --Michael Snow 23:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki link to vi:

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

<noinclude>[[vi:Tiêu bản:PD-USGov]]</noinclude>

Thanks.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 00:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki link to he

Why is this template protected for such a prolonged period of time?
Please add [[he:תבנית:זכויות יוצרים-ממשלת ארצות הברית]]. --Asbl 17:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

protected edit request

Requesting a note be added that this does NOT cover state governments. I made this change on commons (See Commons:Template:PD-USGov) as large numbers of people there were adding state pics as PD-USGov. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering this myself. I added a notice which I hope is adequate. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. 68.39.174.238 21:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

...excluding such as

The license doesn't cover [1] works by:

U.S. Postal Service
District of Columbia
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Territorial areas under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government
State, local, or foreign governments

feydey 21:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Are there tags appropriate for state works then? I cannot find any for tagging a map prepared by the Pennsylvania State Government. Skabat169 15:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The works of many (most?) states are copyrighted by the state and are not free content by default. I believe we do have some state templates for the ones that are okay. --Gmaxwell 16:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please add interwiki link to Serbian Language Wikipedia:

[[sr:Шаблон:ЈВ-САДВлада]]

Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 22:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. —freak(talk) 17:14, Aug. 21, 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again. --Branislav Jovanovic 06:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please add ru-wiki

[[sr:Шаблон:PD-USGov]]

--Alex Spade 14:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please replace text with link to {{USC}}

Please replace

Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code

with

17 U.S.C. § 105

—Markles 13:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Why not just link directly to the specific statute mentioned? --zenohockey 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sandstein 19:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

wrong interwiki to he

the is a wrong interwiki to he the right one is:

[[he:תבנית:תמונה פדרלית]]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.138.210.138 (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

SVG Version

What such to substitute the image of the Great Seal of United States for version SVG? (201.27.112.228 16:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

mk interwiki

{{editprotected}} Please add mk:Шаблон:Јд-САДВлада interwiki. Thanks. --iNkubusse^? 18:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Done Doc created, interwikis moved there. --CapitalR (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

HABS, HAER, and HALS

To be consistent, categories and templates:

       * PD-USGov-Interior-HABS should be moved/renamed PD-USGov-HABS
       * HAER should be moved/renamed PD-USGov-HAER
       * HALS should be moved/renamed PD-USGov-HALS

They span two different government agencies (Library of Congress and National Park service), so they all should be under PD-USGov. LeheckaG (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Link.

The link in the template (work of the United States Federal Government) redirects to Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. I know it's not a biggie, but can anyone fix this? I don't have the proper privileges to edit this template. --~Magnolia Fen (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Notice of Exclusion for Post Office and Stamps

I notice that this Tag is often used incorrectly for stamps. Should the Template include an a warning/exlusion notice for the post office and stamps?

See article: United_States_Postal_Service#Copyright_and_reproduction

See reference: http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightCompendium/chapter_0200.asp

206.02(b) U.S. Postal Service. Works of the U.S.

Postal Service, as now constituted, are not

considered U.S. Government works.

206.02(c) District of Columbia. Works of the govern-

ment of the District of Columbia, as now

constituted, are not considered U.S. Govern-

ment works.

206.02(d) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Works of the

government of Puerto Rico are not considered

to be U.S. Government works.

Dspark76 (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are some examples of possible misuse:

~~Image:Uspslogo.png~~
~~Image:Inverted_Jenny.jpg~~
~~Image:Inverted_jenny400.jpg~~
Image:Stamp_US_1962_4c_Dag_Hammarskjold_invert.jpg

Note, I'm not wiki-linking the images in case they do require fair use limits ...

Dspark76 (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a speedy deletion criteria for images that use the false license, but me and other admins are scanning the category and see what to do. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that a fair use argument could be made for these images on their related page. Some are used on user pages though.

Also, I noticed that the changes that you made did not impact the images upload to wikimedia commons.

Thanks again, Dspark76 (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Because the images are hosted on two different servers. I will make changes to the Commons template now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the licensing tags on some of the above images indicated by x-through as well as a couple of others that I found... Dspark76 (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Following some further discussion, could we add a "issued since 1979" qualify to the stamp statement? See also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stamps_of_the_United_States#Copyright-Note_up_to_1978. Dspark76 (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Some additional clarification - The exlcusion above for the United States Postal Service (USPS) does not include works created by the United States Post Office Department which was replaced by the USPS on July 1, 1971. These older works may be still be covered by PD-USGov. Dspark76 (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless they disclaim it

This appears to be in use for non-federal US government public domain material. I think a disclaimer should be added to include any state or local material that has been disclaimed.

I propose changing the following:

This only applies to works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision.

to:

This only applies to works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision unless they disclaim it.

This change would be consistant with the text on Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain#Intergovernmental.Joflynn (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If a state or territory releases their information as public domain, then just make a template for that specific state and leave the template alone. I think the template wording is good as it is. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats a lot of unnecessary work. This template is already in use for state and local works, they are part of the US Government. Why shouldn't they fall under this template? Joflynn (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In the sense of our purposes, they are not. There has been plenty of times where people have tagged works from the California Government as public domain, but it is not so. While subordinate to the US Government, it doesn't affect copyrights at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Negative. In no sense are state and local governments "part of the US Government". As the copyright situations are entirely different, my strong suggestion is that this tag should say nothing about non-federal (US Gov) jurisdictions except to exclude them. Any qualification of when a state (or other) tag should apply should be in the appropriate tag. Non-federal materials are not covered by the US Gov exemptions, and any such use should be reviewed as incorrect at best, and likely a violation. J. Johnson (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

certain states public documents are PD

Please see Category:US State PD templates. Please change the template to clarify that "[t]his template only applies to works of the Federal Government" so that users are not under the impression that "this" refers to being in the public domain and not this template. Int21h (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

turn off image annotator for the images used

Please replace [[Image:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg|64px]] with {{ImageNoteControl|img=[[Image:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg|64px]]|notes=off}} to turn off image annotations visible for example in File:Yucca brevifolia range map.jpg. --Jarekt (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this valid for a picture taken by an US Embassy worker in official capacity?

I'm thinking about including an image from this video, which was made by an US embassy worker in Hungary in official capcity: http://stream.state.gov/streamvol/sites/budapest/movies/911_2008hq.mp4 .

Is this template applicable? Zenobus (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Worldwide?

I was told in the German Wikipedia and its mailing list that the follwing statement is not true:

in the public domain worldwide

According to

http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2004/09/copyright_in_go.html

which cites

http://www.dtic.mil/cendi/publications/04-8copyright.html#317

US government works are not necessarily in the public domain in other countries.

If you understand German, here is the link to the first mail on the German Wikipedia mailing list and the following debate:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikide-l/2004-September/019992.html

Thanks to Klaus Graf (de:Benutzer:Historiograf) for giving this hint.

Best regards, --zeno 19:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It appears to be rare but possible. It's not an area I have studied so I can't say much more than that. My impression is that it is safe enough to use them and leave it to the choice of the final user to decide, letting them use the image tagging to remove them if they do not want to use them. Jamesday 00:15, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

thank you for changing the text. --zeno 10:28, 15 September 2004 (UTC)

This is stuffing up.

Here's a good example: {{PD-USGov}}

Yes, it's broken for me too; can we fix it, or revert to the previous version for now if we can't? Thanks. — Matt 11:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

After a bit of debugging, I think it justs needs a newline at the top of the article. — Matt 12:44, 21 September 2004 (UTC)

Seal

Any else get a tickle out of a template for public domain images including a fair use image embedded within it?

While not a "fair use image", it is most likely being used illegally. anthony (see warning) 06:04, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It seems Anthony is correct, see 18 USC 713. --Michael Snow 06:15, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why not use the US flag as an image then? -Lommer 02:00, 28 November 2004 (UTC)

"This applies worldwide."

This may not apply worldwide (see above). Why was this edit made? Guan aco 20:33, 26 December 2004 (UTC)

Federal government?

I believe the template message should be changed to

This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the United States ~~federal~~ Government. This applies worldwide. See Copyright.

Or is there any other template for this purpose? --DuKot 01:51, 28 April 2005 (UTC)

Template:PD-US

What's the difference between this template and Template:PD-US ? ✏ Sverdrup 21:11, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The differences are that PD-USGov refers to "work", versus PD-US's "image", and the former stating a worldwide public domain versus the latter saying the possibility of being public domain elsewhere. -- SEWilco 01:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- According to the statement at the top of Template talk:PD-US, it seems to be meant for images not produced by the government, but rather things that have expired copyright in the U.S., or were never eligible for copyright under U.S. law in the first place. Therefore, images under PD-USGov could be considered a subset of PD-US. (I suppose it might be good to break it down into PD-US-expired and PD-US-ineligible or something). —Mulad (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)