Wikipedia talk:Public domain resources
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Old talk can be found at old talk
Any idea where there is good public domain stock footage, you know, like quick clips of a Cannon firing. Or a nuke going off. Or a car driving by.--Gamingboy 21:39, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
Done:
- Filed resources under new heading scheme
- Removed some unused headings, edited others
To do:
- Check for dead links, fix them if possible
- Alphabetize entries within categories, for neatness
As these pages do not provide content in the PD per se, I've removed them, but as the contributor noted they provide facts that can be used in articles. Is there any list of fact-providing resources?
- RootsWeb's WorldConnect Project Often has birth and death dates that are unavailable elsewhere. Notes within individual records may be copyrighted, but vital data is fact and therefore public domain.
- Find-a-Grave
--dittaeva
Not quite sure if this is the right place: Gray's Anatomy was released as a public domain hard cover very cheaply produced and sold widely. I think that it might be possible for many people to locate. Why don't we take a look at it? The drawings at least would be a great start on the human body. The text (1907) is mostly descriptive and should be reletively easy to render in npov. The human body hasn't changed that much. :-) Two16
- I've got a 1974 softcover edition handy, but it may not be the best to work from. Also, it mysteriously claims a 1974 copyright on the entire contents, despite being an "unabridged facsimile of the 1901 edition". This is probably just from the publisher's copyright page boilerplate and doesn't really apply to what is presumably the unchanged public domain text... --Brion 20:39 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)
Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities (1898) seems like it could be a useful resource, but here it states "The materials on the Perseus Project Web pages (including all texts, translations, images, descriptions, drawings etc.) are provided for the personal use of students, scholars, and the public. Any commercial use or publication of them without authorization is strictly prohibited. All materials are copyrighted and are not in the public domain. Copying of materials on the Perseus Web pages is not permitted."
So, can we use this material or not, like the 1911 EB, the material is old enough, but the question is does this site have the right to claim copyright on the text? Smelialichu 20:06 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Audio files
Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump
Wikipedia can't upload audio files including songs, national anthems etc. Is there any current project that would do the trick? I am pretty sure that quite a few people have brought this up in discussions but could someone direct me to any current result or conclusion drawn up? Thanx. User:kt2
We can and do have audio files. OGG Vorbis format is preferred (as it is not patent-encumbered, like MP3). Use [[media:somefile.ext]] to link directly to any uploaded file (including images, audio, video, etc). As usual, respect copyright! --Brion 07:54 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)
Added the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection. The public domain usage statement refers to the collection, but not necessarily to all sopurces. Quote: "If you are using materials that are in the public domain (such as images from the Portrait Gallery or the PCL Map Collection), please use: Courtesy of The General Libraries, The University of Texas at Austin.". Public domain status should be probably be verified, especially with contemporary sources, but there seems to be little ambiguity over the historical maps. -- Mic 08:40 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
Two school years ago, I was forced to take extensive reading notes on a textbook of the History of the United States. Does anyone besides me have any copyright claim on those notes? -Smack 17:24 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Images on Library of Congress Country Studies
The Library of Congress Country Studies is free to use, but I have a question about the images. For example, here is a photo with the text "Courtesy Embassy of Finland, Washington". Does this mean that I cannot use this photo, or is it non-copyrighted although it is originally from the embassy of Finland? Den fjättrade ankan 15:18, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Einstein's relativity and public domain
None has commented on my remark/question on "Relativity: The Special and General Theory by Albert Einstein" in any way but deleting it.
Can this be considered a public domain source when the document states in its header: "Copyleft: Einstein Reference Archive (marxists.org) 1999, 2002. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License."?
A better answer than blanking my question is wanted.
— Sverdrup (talk) 23:54, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I left a small hint in the Summary but it wasn't much of an answer...
- Data / documents covered by the GFDL (just as Wikipedia) are not considered part of the public domain. But as they are covered by the same license as Wikipedia, they can be used here. Such web-pages should be listed in the Wikipedia:GNU Free Documentation License resources page. Marxists.org is already listed there.
- Next time you have a question about a particular webpage it would be better if you put it directly in the talk page. Dittaeva 14:08, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the answer! According to the article "This page is intended as a list of only true public domain text resources. For public domain images, see Wikipedia:Public domain image resources." and your answer, I move the link to Wikipedia:GNU Free Documentation License resources. — Sverdrup (talk) 14:34, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Google's working on digitizing Stanford's entire pre-1923 collection of books. See http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?section=INFOTECH&oid=43909 and ctrl+F to find "ocean"; it's in the paragraph. Koyaanis Qatsi 19:52, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Awesome source for public-domain woodcuttings & line drawings
I just dug out an old book (The Clip Art Book, 1980; Amazon link. You have to scan in the illustrations, but there are over 5000 pictures of all kinds of things. There are line drawings of probably famous people (not labeled), tons of pages of old tools (many of which I cant' identify), lots of pictures of a wide variety of horse-drawn carriages & all other kinds of older transportation, people doing all knds of things, plants & food, anatomical sketches, architecture, sports, costume & clothing, weapons & hearldry & armour, animals... jeez I could be here for the rest of my life scanning them in. Get it and start scanning! See what I've uploaded for European dueling sword and Tonsure. Elf | Talk 18:06, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- There seem to be more than one book of public-domain images...it would be great if people could get them all online. See also, for example, the appropriately named Scan This Book by Mendenhall (2500 images). —Steven G. Johnson 19:59, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
-
- It *would* be wonderful; two problems: This particular book is nearly 400 pages, and it'll be rare to find someone with that much time; also, the *page layout* is copyrighted, so in theory we cannot scan in an entire page but must do it an image at a time. ("The selection of illustrations and their layout is the copyright of the publishers, so that one page or more may not be photocopie or reproduced without first contacting the publishers." It's possible that someone could contact the publishers, explain wikipedia, & get permission. Elf | Talk 20:05, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Important distinction being made here. It seems that the images are not individually copyrighted, but the book is. Have a good think about this. It means we can't do what you suggest and scan the whole thing in. What we can do is to use scans of individual images, in appropriate articles. That's what it all means.
-
-
-
- And this makes sense. While this particular book may now be out of print, the publishers and the artists they employ still need to eat, and producing whatever clip art books are currently in print is how they do this. To use their work to provide an online alternative is an attractive idea to us, but it's neither fair nor legal. Andrewa 20:59, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
[edit] Soviet pre-1973
If {{sovietpd}} is true (please make it a link), it should be added to the article.
- I don't think it's true. See Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, and note that there's also the identical {{PD-USSR}}. Lupo 10:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spam prevented edit
As the Web transcriber of a large public-domain dictionary of some usefulness (Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities) I wanted to add it to the list of History sources in the public domain. I went thru the hoops, then got a message that the edit wouldn't take prolly because it included a link to "h-i-s-t-o-r-y-o-f-n-a-t-i-o-n-s.n-e-t", which is banned.
Fair 'nuff — except that that "h-i-s-t-o-r-y-o-f-n-a-t-i-o-n-s.n-e-t" item was in the existing list; I didn't add it.
- Have I done something wrong? If so, what should I do?
- Has "h-i-s-t-o-r-y-o-f-n-a-t-i-o-n-s.n-e-t" snuck in under the wire somehow, i.e., does it need to be deleted from the existing list?
Bill 13:37, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Someone else has since been bold and deleted the offending item (and in turn I got my edit in), but if that item was decreed to be spam, I'm still curious how it managed to get in here anyway.... Or rather, I hope the problem gets fixed. — Bill 19:20, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have removed Bad Bug source, as it is part of the FDA website. --Eleassar777 09:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Check a site.
Could someone read [1]] and make sure that it is a public domain site before adding it to the list. Thank you. CG 11:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Just saw your note, The site itself is PD, see http://www.xist.org/contact.aspx. The data is derived from the statistical services of the various countries. In current US law data is not protected, but that is not necessarily the case elsewhere. I'd suggest at least a link to the orig. source, not just Geohive,. though it seems a carefuly constructed compilation. DGG 23:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Appropriate Use
I have noticed on pages in several areas that the entire article is copied from easily acccessible public domain sources (typically, US government documents). Sometimes the first half of an article is copied, and then a few additions are made at the bottom, instead of at the appropriate places. Depending on where the document comes from, the material may be the sort of govertmental language used to fill paper with text, rather than actually say anything.
Not that these articles are wrong. Rather, much better articles could be witten, and probably could be best written by starting from scratch than by trying to turn the low-grade government product into a concise and helpful article.
(I also note that the source is often omitted; it's usually been in the "talk" or the "history," not in the article itself. This is plagiarism. When the article becomes complemented by some original material, there is usually no attempt to indicate what parts have been copied. Perhaps when WP was beginning, it was important to have content, but perhaps it is now time to have information.
DGG 02:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] anyone interested about ethical use?
this is basically a rewording of my last post here. I have been observing several very common practices: Putting a notice that part of the article has has been copied from XXX, and not indicating what part Putting a notice that part of the article has has been copied from XXX, and copying the whole thing intact, without saying so. Not putting a notice , but doing likewise this is being done from Public domain sources, and is indeed legal, but it borderline in terms of ethics, non-encyclopedist in nature, and is taken outside WP as an indication of our lack of seriousness.
When was there last a discussion of this?DGG 04:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] dates?
It would be useful to add the dates of publication or revision for some of the US government and other public domain sources. (this doesn't mean I voluteer to do them all)DGG 23:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
