This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Cinema List‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force. Film: American List‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Lists List‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles List This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Open List‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Law List‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics List‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/2009  • /2010  • /2011  • /2012  • /2013  • /2014  • /2015  • /2016

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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 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:

• The Big Wheel

• The Gorilla

• Kit Carson

• Life with Father

• Rage at Dawn

• Waldo's Last Stand

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:Public domain films, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. GreenC 20:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]