Property talk:P6216

Documentation

copyright status
copyright status for intellectual creations like works of art, publications, software, etc.

Description

copyright status for any work of art or intellectual creation

Represents

copyright status (Q50424085)

Data type

Item

Domain

work (Q386724), data (Q42848), collection (Q2668072), item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264), chord (Q170439), series of creative works (Q7725310), group of musical works (Q115473170) or fictional entity (Q14897293)

Allowed values

public domain (Q19652), copyrighted (Q50423863), not yet determined (Q59496158), unknown, copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder (Q88088423), orphan work (Q1546053) or no known copyright restrictions (Q99263261)

Example

Atomic Cloud Rises Over Nagasaki (Q55437339) → public domain (Q19652)
One Thousand and One Nights (Q8258) → public domain (Q19652)
Guernica (Q175036) → copyrighted (Q50423863)
Mona Lisa (Q12418) → public domain (Q19652)
Gutenberg Bible (Q158075) → public domain (Q19652)
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Q102438) → copyrighted (Q50423863)

Commons example

→ copyrighted (Q50423863)
→ copyrighted (Q50423863)

Tracking: usage

Category:Pages using Wikidata property P6216 (Q107391557)

determination method (P459) edit

This is a list of values used with the qualifier determination method (P459)

Manually update list

This list is periodically updated by a bot. Manual changes to the list will be removed on the next update!

WDQS | PetScan | TABernacle | Find images | Recent changes

#	qid	label	count	instance of	subclass of
1	Q29940705	100 years or more after author(s) death	420088	copyright determination method time interval
2	Q47246828	published more than 95 years ago	414115	copyright determination method	copyright term
3	Q61848113	determined by GLAM institution and stated at its website	282161	copyright determination method
4	Q80211245	Swedish copyright act 2 chapter 26 §	265711	article copyright determination method
5	Q29940641	80 years or more after author(s) death	65908	copyright determination method time interval
6	Q29870196	70 years or more after author(s) death	64055	copyright determination method time interval algorithm	determination method
7	Q707401	threshold of originality	17604	legal concept design requirement criterion	rule
8	Q106606144	public domain in the People's Republic of China	16990	copyright determination method	public domain
9	Q29870405	50 years or more after author(s) death	4414	copyright determination method time interval
10	Q114765114	70 years after author's death	3009	copyright term occurrence
11	Q61045577	stated by copyright holder at source website	1372	copyright determination method
12	Q60628769	70 years since publication by anonymous author	935	copyright determination method time interval	copyright term
13	Q5189489	Crown copyright	696	license	copyright
14	Q83273402	50 years after creation of (non-artistic) photographic image	558	copyright determination method	copyright term
15	Q29870735	70 years or less since publication	375	copyright determination method time interval	copyright term
16	Q29941035	copyright not renewed	311	copyright determination method	copyright term
17	Q114818794	85 years or more after author(s) death	202	copyright determination method time interval
18	Q3709085	copyright law of Italy	202	law statute
19	Q60671452	work of the federal government of the United States	192	copyright determination method legal concept	governmental work public domain
20	Q109229381	public domain due to great age	122	copyright determination method
21	Q117720189	100 years after author's death	99	copyright term occurrence
22	Q29940912	95 years after publication with notice and renewal	95	copyright determination method	copyright term
23	Q114818795	90 years or more after author(s) death	74	copyright determination method time interval
24	Q114818797	95 years or more after author(s) death	64	copyright determination method time interval
25	Q114789518	70 years or less since death of author(s)	52	copyright determination method time interval	copyright term
26	Q63860166	creator who is not dead	52	copyright determination method heuristic for determination of copyright status of a creator
27	Q87369831	90 years after author's death	45	copyright term occurrence
28	Q1361758	publication date	44		release date
29	Q60952328	100 years after creation by anonymous author	42	copyright determination method	copyright term
30	Q61862704	95 years after publication with notice	39	copyright determination method	copyright term
31	Q47012574	no copyright due to missing copyright notice	36	copyright determination method license	copyright term
32	Q6938433	Creative Commons CC0 License	34	Creative Commons license public-domain-equivalent license open license waiver	license
33	Q117460009	75 years or more after author(s) death	33	copyright determination method time interval
34	Q1318221	rule of the shorter term	33	legal norm
35	Q50552069	public domain due to expiry of copyright	27	copyright status copyright determination method	public domain
36	Q3815153	sweat of the brow	24	rule principle of law
37	Q61062601	no copyright due to error in copyright notice	23	copyright determination method copyright formality	no copyright due to missing copyright notice
38	Q842270	copyright law of the United States	23		law of the United States
39	Q47036229	50 years or less since publication	17	copyright determination method time interval	copyright term
40	Q1955019	18th century in music	16	events in a specific year or time period
41	Q114818719	60 years or more after author(s) death	15	copyright determination method time interval
42	Q61005058	ineligible for copyright protection	15	license condition copyright status legal concept	public domain
43	Q63860173	50 years or less since death of author(s)	15	copyright determination method time interval	copyright term
44	Q72286597	150 years after publication of work by an author whose year of death is not known	14	copyright determination method
45	Q4557691	18th century in poetry	13	events in a specific year or time period
46	Q108706138	published 95 years ago or less	11	copyright determination method	dependency condition
47	Q61141194	56 years after publication with registration and renewal	11	copyright determination method
48	Q108697943	date of death of author(s)	10		date of death copyright determination method
49	Q60628165	60 years or less since publication	10	copyright determination method time interval	copyright term
50	Q61138764	120 years after creation of unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous works, and works made for hire	9	copyright determination method
51	Q61002900	official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature	8	condition legal concept copyright determination method heuristic for determination of copyright status of a creator	governmental work public domain edict
52	Q118108751	published more than 70 years ago	7	copyright determination method	dependency condition
53	Q820655	statute	7		legal act legal transaction written work
54	Q84243408	74 years after author's death	7	copyright term occurrence
55	Q96095092	died more than 100 years ago	6	heuristic for determination of copyright status of a creator
56	Q108692969	published solely outside the US before 1978, but less than 95 years ago, not in compliance with US formalities and not public domain in its home country on 1st January 1996	5	copyright determination method
57	Q61753213	60 years after authors death	5	copyright term occurrence
58	Q77205602	copyright license	5		license
59	Q87721114	more than 120 year after life sign plus 70 year copyright duration	5	heuristic for determination of copyright status of a creator
60	Q7748	law	5	academic discipline	rule
61	Q109232133	recent publication	4	copyright determination method
62	Q112166410	no copyright notice and failure to register copyright	4	copyright determination method not compliant with US copyright formalities
63	Q114818791	78 years or more after author(s) death	4	copyright determination method time interval
64	Q117459904	30 years or less since death of author(s)	4	copyright determination method time interval	copyright term
65	Q17155531	edict of government doctrine	4	legal doctrine policy
66	Q2808194	16th century in literature	4	aspect of history
67	Q50551851	public domain as not covered by copyright law	4	copyright status condition legal concept	public domain
68	Q5169286	copyright renewed	4	copyright determination method
69	Q5988110	Idea–expression divide	4	criterion
70	Q60998463	governmental work	4	legal concept	work
71	Q61138249	95 years after publication works made for hire and anonymous and pseudonymous works	4	copyright determination method
72	Q87015002	author life sign less than 70 years ago	4	heuristic for determination of copyright status of a creator	life sign of author
73	Q885115	exception to copyright	4	legal concept law	exception copyright
74	Q918113	freedom of panorama	4	exception to copyright
75	Q96095089	died more than 70 years ago	4	heuristic for determination of copyright status of a creator
76	Q96095541	died less than 50 years ago	4	heuristic for determination of copyright status of a creator
77	Q96739150	Swedish copyright act 1 chapter 9 §	4	article copyright determination method
78	Q108702158	25 years or more after author(s) death	3	copyright determination method time interval
79	Q109229521	author died less than 100 years ago and declared 'mort pour la France'	3	copyright determination method
80	Q109234365	published solely outside the US before 1978, but less than 95 years ago, not in compliance with US formalities and in the public domain in its home country on 1st January 1996	3	copyright determination method
81	Q193181	observation	3	activity specialty field of study	noticing
82	Q96095416	died less than 70 years ago	3	heuristic for determination of copyright status of a creator
83	Q117719975	100 years or less since death of author(s)	2	copyright determination method time interval	copyright term
84	Q26944781	unpublished work	2	legal concept sourcing circumstance	creative work
85	Q39046419	Swedish Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works	2	copyright act statute copyright law	copyright legal system of Sweden
86	Q5169284	copyright registration	2	copyright formality	occurrence registration process
87	Q56757232	Copyright Amendment Act 2006	2	Act of the Parliament of Australia
88	Q56759594	Copyright Act 1968	2	Act of the Parliament of Australia copyright act
89	Q61752729	25 years or less since publication	2	copyright determination method time interval	copyright term
90	Q65016080	70 years after creation by anonymous or unknown author	2	copyright determination method	copyright term
91	Q68542701	15 years or more after author(s) death	2	copyright determination method time interval
92	Q84572437	50 years after publication outside the US	2	copyright determination method	copyright term
93	Q30	United States of America	1	sovereign state constitutional republic democratic republic federal republic superpower country
94	Q104907570	70 years or longer since publication by corporate author	1	copyright determination method
95	Q108693177	published in the US from 1 March 1989 to 2002, and created after 1977, not a corporate work, and the author died less than 70 years ago	1	copyright determination method time interval
96	Q108702587	published in the US from 1 March 1989 to 2002, and created after 1977, and a corporate work, and less than 95 years from publication and less than 120 years from creation	1	copyright determination method
97	Q10872186	copyright law of the People's Republic of China	1	copyright law law of the People's Republic of China
98	Q108744465	published in the US from 1978 to 1 March 1989, with copyright notice, and created after 1977, and not a corporate work, and less than 70 years from the death of the author(s)	1	copyright determination method
99	Q110444013	78 years after author's death	1	copyright term occurrence
100	Q114765077	50 years after author's death	1	copyright term occurrence
101	Q114818787	74 years or more after author(s) death	1	copyright determination method time interval
102	Q117459992	75 years or less since death of author(s)	1	copyright determination method time interval	copyright term
103	Q118108505	published 70 years ago or less	1	copyright determination method	dependency condition
104	Q19096484	Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago	1	legal case
105	Q20007257	Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International	1	Creative Commons license open license open license
106	Q21160456	year of death	1		year
107	Q22917333	100 Years	1	film advertising campaign
108	Q2325323	state symbol	1		national symbol state symbols and signs
109	Q29940870	120 years after creation of unpublished work by an author whose year of death is not known	1	copyright determination method	copyright term
110	Q37617783	date of creation of title	1	Wikidata internal entity
111	Q41799830	National Anthem Act	1	statute
112	Q42553662	Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International	1	Creative Commons license proprietary license
113	Q480261	amtliches Werk	1		work
114	Q5169249	copyright law of Australia	1	copyright law
115	Q5169272	copyright law of Spain	1	legislation law
116	Q557141	public art	1	art genre art movement	visual arts
117	Q56759179	Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Act 2017	1	Act of the Parliament of Australia
118	Q60332278	countries with 100 years pma or shorter	1	grouping of jurisdictions around copyright legislation	countries with pma copyright
119	Q61729535	copyright law of Czech Republic	1	law
120	Q61889273	50 years after publication of Crown work	1	copyright determination method
121	Q62601669	70 years after creation of unpublished work	1	copyright determination method
122	Q64166179	17 U.S.C. 105 and 106	1	code of law
123	Q7079604	copyright of official texts	1		legal doctrine policy
124	Q71887839	copyrights on works have expired	1	copyright status of set rule
125	Q72283850	120 years after work of person with unknown death date	1
126	Q77406753	no copyright because created by a non-human animal	1	copyright status	public domain as not covered by copyright law
127	Q78056559	corporate authorship	1		author's rights
128	Q898931	expiration date	1		calendar date guideline storage condition
129	Q963619	medieval literature	1	sub-set of literature aspect in a historical period literary period	literature
130	Q97971374	died more than 80 years ago	1	heuristic for determination of copyright status of a creator
131	Q23548	National Aeronautics and Space Administration	1	space agency independent agency of the United States government
132	Q35127	website	1		digital media online publication online service virtual place integrating resource digital-native publication software
133	Q42253	URL	1	technical standard	Uniform Resource Identifier
134	Q7016	17th century	1	century

∑ 134 items.

not yet determined / Q59496158 as a value edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Dominic, did you plan for this to be an allowed value, an exception, or just something for us to use through which to keep track? James F. (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Done in [1], thanks Jarekt! James F. (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

data as an allowed domain? edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

In [2], Jarekt added data as an allowed domain. This feels quite wrong to me; copyright doesn't attach to non-creative works [yes yes, sweat of the brow] – that would be database rights, Q688416. James F. (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

James F. I was trying to align this property with constraints used by copyright license (P275) property. I guess we could search the use of copyright license (P275) where item is an instance of data (Q42848) but not work (Q386724) and see if they make sense. I just would like to change both of them at the same time. --Jarekt (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Jarekt: Ah, right. That makes sense. Thanks! James F. (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

This property is not exclusively for copyrightable works, since it takes "public domain" as a possible value. I supposed there are cases where it may be relevant to note the copyright status of non-creative works, and we should allow it, though I'm not sure where that slippery slope ends (you also can't copyright sadness (Q169251), but that's probably not worth saying). Dominic (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree that this property is for any type of work that might be copyrightable and even some that are not. We do have images which are in Public domain using Template:PD-ineligible (Q5881610), for example some simple text logos, signatures or x-ray images. I assume this property will be used on Wikidata for artworks and on Commons for images. --Jarekt (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dominic: I'd say that the "copyright status" of something is only meaningful with regard to something that could have a copyright attached to it. For example, creative photographs are copyrightable, and yet creative photographs taken in the course of their duties by agents of the US Federal Government are public domain because of the operation of the relevant law, not because they're magically not creative photographs. Having items that could not under any circumstances tagged with this property – be they datasets, emotions, or whatever – adds confusion. Having parallel properties for patents, design rights, database rights etc. could be a useful extension, but we shouldn't muddy this property by trying to overload it to mean "intellectual property concerns". James F. (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

copyright status justification edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

Moved from Wikidata:Property proposal/copyright status: Do we have somebody prepared to create a proposal for copyright status justification? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@ArthurPSmith: We already have and use determination method (P459) for that, for example 70 years or more after author(s) death (Q29870196) and 100 years or more after author(s) death (Q29940705). Doesn't that cover it? Multichill (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

But the status and justification can vary by country. No examples have been offered demonstrating the use of this property for a less than trivial case. For example: The Secret Adversary (Q617379) is a slightly more complicated case. The novel is PD in the United States, since it was published prior to 1922, but under copyright in the UK, because Agatha Christie died less than 70 years ago. The copyright status in other countries may vary. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Multichill, I forgot about that property as we always used word justification in describing it, but you are correct it is very close. determination method (P459) is quite natural fit for PD works, but I was hoping to use the same method for copyrighted works like my photos on Commons once we have Structured data. Would it work to have determination method (P459) = Template:Own (Q14401683) or some equivalent item? --Jarekt (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Besides determination method (P459) we use applies to jurisdiction (P1001) to declare the public domain date (P3893) if it differs per country (see examples), we can do the same for copyright status (P6216) --Hannolans (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Maybe figure out the public domain case first before we switch to the next case? We might end up being able to use the existing property or creating a new one.

For some interesting edge cases related to this have a look at Het achterhuis (Q14624856) and Truncated View of the Broekzijder Mill on the Gein Wings Facing West (Q19883472). But before we dive into the edge case, let's get agree on how to do some easy ones? Than we have a starting point to figure out the harder cases. Let's take Day of the God (Mahana no Atua) (Q3765980) as an example. I noticed my bot just uploaded a new image for it. I added public domain to it, but what qualifiers should be added? Multichill (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's a bit difficult to find what all the possible justifications (or determination methods) for copyright status would be. In an ideal world, maybe we need to first create an item for "copyright status justification" so that we can collect all the possible values by adding "instance of":"copyright status justification" to them and have a queryable list from that. This list would also be helpful for a help manual. Dominic (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@EncycloPetey: Does applies to jurisdiction (P1001) satisfy your concerns about jurisdiction issues, or is it more complicated than that? I can't think of a case where simply adding multiple values with different jurisdiction qualifiers wouldn't be appropriate, but I just want to be clear we are understanding your concern. Dominic (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. I am simply seeking model exemplars that would address such situations. We need exemplars of correct property use for more complex cases so that editors will have a model to follow. The current exemplars for this property are trivially simple. If you can set up one or more exemplars for more complex cases, then we have something as a basis for discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

As a start, what do people think of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q617379#P6216 as a start? (Needs references, and we'd need to tag Q47246828 to make determination method happy somehow). James F. (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

How would we add additional jurisdictions, such as Canada, India, or the EU? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I created countries with 70 years pma or shorter (Q59542795) and used it at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q617379#P6216 . countries with 70 years pma or shorter (Q59542795) contains partial list of countries based on list of countries' copyright lengths (Q3041655). We could also add info that it is also copyrighted in Countries with 50 years pma, but that might be an overkill. --Jarekt (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why would that be overkill? Some books will be copyright for both 50 and 70, but at some point they'll be PD for 50 and copyright for 70. And what about countries which have other timespans? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

On Commons we only worry about copyright in country of origin and in the US (where the servers are). We could list copyright situation for every group of countries with different pma, but that seems to me as not necessary. --Jarekt (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

BTW I also have example #2 Day of the God (Mahana no Atua) (Q3765980). Thoughts? --Jarekt (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata is not limited to the needs of Commons; it serves all MW projects and more. We have contributors from all over the world, including people who need to know whether a work is under copyright in their country, not just the US and the work's country of origin.

Consider Pygmalion (Q637200), a play which is under copyright in the EU and UK because Shaw (the author) died in 1950 (less than 70 yrs pma), but is in PD for the US because it was published prior to 1923, and in Canada because copyright there is 50 yrs pma. How do we label the copyright status of this play when different jurisdictions have the same copyright status but differing reasons for that status? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

EncycloPetey Commons also serves all MW projects and more, we just prioritize country of origin and US. I am OK with people adding statements covering many different countries, although I think we should group them as much as possible. To label the copyright status of this play when different jurisdictions have the same copyright status but differing reasons, I would just add additional P6216=PD with different reason and different countries. --Jarekt (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can you please demonstrate what this would look like? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I created items like countries with 50 years pma or shorter (Q59621182) and countries with 70 years pma or shorter (Q59542795) to group many countries with similar copyright laws into a single item. I used them in Het achterhuis (Q14624856) for both PD and copyrighted cases. --Jarekt (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Mass add this property to old paintings? edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago29 comments6 people in discussion

We currently have about 330.000 paintings here on Wikidata. A simple query for all the paintings that are made before 1800 or for which the painter died before 1900 returns 120.000 paintings. Should we mass add the public domain copyright status to these works? Should be a good way to kick start this property. Multichill (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

May be we should first write Help:Copyrights with examples of how to use this, and add them to a few items so we can see we are all on the same page. Than I think doing it for majority of artworks would be a great start. --Jarekt (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Multichill So how would such entry look like for those 120k paintings? I was thinking:

copyright status

public domain

edit

applies to jurisdiction

worldwide

determination method

100 years or more after author(s) death

0 references

add reference

add value

Is the determination method=100 years or more after author(s) death sufficient? Or should we have some other item? --Jarekt (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Jarekt: if we want to model the current situation on Commons we should add why it is out of copyright everywhere and in the USA. We got the everywhere covered, but not the USA pre-1923 part. How to do that? Multichill (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

For the USA pre-1923 part, wouldn't you need proof that these paintings were actually published in the USA prior to 1923? AFAIK just being created prior to that isn't enough. --Kam Solusar (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Multichill, Kam Solusar: So here is the problem: US copyright law for known authors is focused on date of publication. According to Berne and Universal Copyright Conventions , "publication" is defined as "distribution of copies to the general public with the consent of the author", and US definition seem to be similar. For majority of the paintings (or other artworks) there is no way to verify that they were ever published (in the US or elsewhere). For example to prove that Mona Lisa is in Public Domain in the US we would need to find something like pre-1923 book with it or prove that such book does not exist so we can use c:Template:PD-US-unpublished. So even in case of Mona Lisa I can not prove that it is in Public Domain without deep research. That is why most PD-old images on Commons do not have proof of being PD in US. We could create something like countries with 70 years pma or shorter (Q59542795) for "Countries with retroactive pma copyright Laws" which would be most countries in the world except US and we would use that in case of applies to jurisdiction (P1001). By the way in case of unknown authors, US falls onto 120 years from creation, so maybe we can start with those. --Jarekt (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also according to en:History of copyright law the earliest copyright laws date back to 1710, so one can assume that stuff created prior to that would be in Public Domain. However my understanding is that at least in the US, if someone finds new work by Shakespeare and publishes it in the US in years 1978 through 2002 than it is copyrighted until 2048. See c:Commons:Hirtle_chart and here. --Jarekt (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

We've been doing this on Commons for many years. I would like to model that situation, not make a new model. Multichill (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Multichill, Commons do not handle copyrights of old artworks in the US. For example, Mona Lisa has copyright statements that claims that is is PD in " countries where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or less" and adds that "You must also include a US PD tag to indicate why this work is in the PD in the US.", but there is no US tag that applies, unless you know something about publication history, that we usually do not know. So maybe we could just create equivalent model by creating an item for "countries where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or less". I raised this question again on Commons:Village_pump/Copyright. --Jarekt (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fixed the Mona Lisa image to use Template:PD-old-100-1923.

Did you notice the publication info linked from the template? Does that make it clearer. Let's see what the people on Commons can come up with. Multichill (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes I like those links to c:Commons:Publication. I noticed them somewhere and like them enough to add them to many templates, (including PD-1923) as well as c:Commons:Hirtle chart. --Jarekt (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Multichill: That template asserts publication or registration with the US copyright office at or before a certain date. For a painting, it is always possible that neither of those assertions hold. What is wanted is a statement asserting either non-publication or some assertion suitable for a painting that is more than 400 years old. The template you have added makes assertions for which there is no backing evidence.

And no, the publication info linked from the template does not make it clearer because the page says no such page exists. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Multichill: I also was never comfortable claiming that painting was published before 1923, and more precisely legally published with the blessing of the copyright holders, When in most cases we do not know anything about it. --Jarekt (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

In the USA, unpublished works get into the public domain 120 years after creation, so any such works from before 1898 are in the public domain in the USA. So yes, we can add a public domain world wide tag to all paintings from before 1898 and whose author died before 1918. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we should use something like:

copyright status

public domain

edit

applies to jurisdiction

Countries with 100 years pma or less

determination method

100 years or more after author(s) death

0 references

add reference

public domain

edit

applies to jurisdiction

United States of America

sourcing circumstances

presumably

determination method

due to age we presume work was either legally published before 1923 or never published

0 references

add reference

add value

With 2 mode q codes. --Jarekt (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why would we presume that a work was published? Also, the 1923 date is unrelated to the 120 years needed for works that were never published; those cannot be combined in a single statement because the length of time required is substantially different for the two. Further, the 1923 cutoff date for the US will change to 1924 in less than 11 days. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Jarekt, Hannolans: let's take a easy piece out of the pie: According to Commons:Commons:Hirtle chart if a work is unpublished, but created before 1898, it's in the public domain. So for the USA part we could just create an item "inception before 1898 and published or unpublished" (better name needed). That way we can have a way to properly model probably around 80%+ of the paintings. Do you think that would work? Multichill (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is it the inception date that is relevant here, or the completion date? For works that are published, it would be publication date, but which date is relevant for works that may not have been published? --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

For works after 1898 we should exclude US, and start adding publication date (P577). Is publication date (P577) an US issue only? Should we create a group of countries 70 pma with US excluded? Or use a qualifier? inception (P571) we should use for completion date or inception, we make no difference. But the latest dat should be used, as we are defining the copyright status about the last, completed version of that work. --Hannolans (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Hannolans: Publication date is mostly a US issue, but can be relevant outside the us if a work was published anonymously (has no author identified). For example, UK works published anonymously enter public domain 95 years after publication. Perhaps we should consider creating a decision tree (logic diagram, flowchart) to help clarify the issues relevant for copyright? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes exactly. The date of publication is also relevant before or after 70 years related to copyright rules about published/unpublished works. Notably for documentation within archives. For example, the manuscripts of Anne Frank where published in 1987 in De dagboeken van Anne Frank (Q29562896), so the copyright has been extended until 2036, but in 2018 a new manuscript manuscript of Anne Frank's dairy (Q53655940) was published, and as the publication date was after 70 years pma, those sentences are public domain. --Hannolans (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Multichill, Hannolans, EncycloPetey: So if we narrow down the discussion to works that are either:

created by known authors who died more than 100 years ago, or
created by unknown authors more than 120 years ago

Than we can presume that one of the following is true:

the work was never published, or
the work was published before 1923

which would make such works also PD in the US. The cases of works legally published after 1923, which might still be copyrighted are very rare, but we should be ready to accept them if properly referenced. See also c:Copyright#Old_Paintings_and_the_US_Copyright discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, we cannot make those assumptions. Some works by writers or illustrators are famously published posthumously, often with notes or emendations for a work that was incomplete at the time of the author's death. And US copyright may have been renewed (in the author's behalf) by heirs or publishers. Your reasoning above is backwards for determining US copyright. For US copyright, we need to know the date of publication is sufficiently old, or else know that it was not published, and this requires research (due diligence) in the copyright registration databases to ascertain. Your summation works for most countries, but not for the US, and there may be other situations of which I am unaware.

If we know that a work was published prior to 1923, it is PD in the US regardless of any other considerations. (or prior to 1924 after the start of the new year). But if we do not know when it was published, or do not know whether or not it was published, then we do not know its copyright status in the US. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

EncycloPetey we do have hundreds of thousands of old artworks on Wikidata many of them more than 2-3 hundred years old, It is not reasonable to expect to do "required research (due diligence) in the copyright registration databases" to check each such artwork, unless we can do it in a batch mode somehow. Also in case of artworks, the term publish is not clearly defined, for example printing it in a book is considered publishing when done with a blessing of the copyright owners, but public display without prohibition of copying might also be a form of publishing. I do not think we can do enough due diligence to figure out why Leonardo da Vinci artworks are in the PD in the US, but I think we can agree that they are not copyrighted. I am just trying to come out with pragmatic solution to the problem, because we were trying your proposed solution of due diligence on Commons, and somehow not many people are interested in painful research to figure out why something is in PD. Alternative approach of slapping template claiming that it was either published or not published also seems wrong without any proof of publication. --Jarekt (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

If due diligence is not possible, then we would have to tag the works as such, but that leaves open the possibility of a lawsuit. Yes, due diligence is a painful process, but the requirement for due diligence is not mine, it is the legal expectation under US law. The best we could say, without checking, is that "we don't know" whether or not it's in public domain by US standards. Personally, I expect you are correct about the paintings of Leonardo da Vinci, but the contents of some of his notebooks might not be. We need someone trained in copyright law to provide advice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

EncycloPetey I am not proposing to change any current practices for PD-old-100 works which for Commons mean that we ignore US copyrights, since we know works are in PD but can not determine exactly why. Alternative approach of throwing a coin and adding either c:template:PD-1923 or c:template:PD-US-unpublished without any proof of validity for the chosen template also seems flawed. That is what we have been doing for last 15 years. With Wikidata we have a chance to do it differently if we choose to, so as far as I can tell when adding copyright statements to couple hundred thousand PD-old-100 works we can either ignore US jurisdiction or we can add a statement saying why we pressume it to be in public domain. I guess the 3rd posibility is to kick the can down the road and ignore US jurisdiction for now and come back to it in the future. Which solution do you prefere? --Jarekt (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I decline to recommend one of these three action with regard to US copyright, since I am not a copyright lawyer. I do not know which course would legally be the safest, and am not really happy with any of those options. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Jarekt:, thanks for trying to find a solution here.

Let's go for the "work created over 120 years ago" option That covers both published and unpublished works. Do you want to create an item for that or do we already have one? Multichill (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Multichill According to c:Template:PD-US-unpublished, for that rule to apply it has to be "an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, and it was created before 1899". So we would have to apply it to works of "Master of ..." type of artists. I created 120 years after creation of unpublished work by an author whose year of death is not known (Q60327903) for unknown or anonymous artists and we already have 70 years or more after author(s) death (Q29870196) for known ones. Also I think that it is OK do add statements for jurisdictions we know and not have statements for jurisdictions we are not sure, like US. Since it is hard to proove that work was not published. --Jarekt (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Model Item edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Do we have a Model Item for this property? I'd love to see a nice juicy and complex copyright story with different jurisdictions, editions, competing perspectives and dates... something we can use to really express the flexibility of this property. Perhaps Diary of Anne Frank (Q6911) would be a good one - see the en.wp description of it's copyright history at The Diary of a Young Girl # Copyright and ownership of the originals. Wittylama (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Liam, copyright of Diary of Anne Frank (Q6911) which include several editions, seem to be a mess. Original Manuscripts by Anne Frank (Q29571913) seem to be only written by Anne Frank, it is in Public Domain and we can document various copyright owners. Het achterhuis (Q14624856) (1947 version) has more messy copyright history, it seems like it is in Public Domain since 2016, however Anne Frank Fund (Q565286), the last copyright owner, now claims that the book was co-authored by Otto Frank and they still hold the copyrights, so we can try to model disputed claims. Other versions would have translator copyrights and copyrights by later editors, like 1986 version: De dagboeken van Anne Frank (Q29562896). So copyright of Diary of Anne Frank (Q6911) which include many editions might be too messy to tackle, but manuscripts by Anne Frank (Q29571913) and Het achterhuis (Q14624856) would be OK. --Jarekt (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

it looks like you've done an excellent job on Het achterhuis (Q14624856) now already Jarekt, building on the work of Hannolans. I propose it should be listed as Model Item for that property's usage! How do we make that statement? Wittylama (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

The copyright of the works of Anne Frank is a debate, due to rules for unpublished versus published works and postuum works. We need to take in account the publication date besides the creation date as the original publication didnt include all the manuscripts as some texts of the manuscrpts where published in 1986 and thus have other copyright rules. What we can do is add qualifiers for the part of work that was published versus unpublished and have multiple copyright statuses if needed. If we are able to do so we have a perfect example that we even can even handle complex copyright situations --Hannolans (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, we do not have model items. See the discussion above (in #copyright status justification) where we determined that only the very simplest situations could be handled with the current setup. A new proposal has been started (see below at #Rights statements). --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Liam, I added copyright statements to Het achterhuis (Q14624856). One can make it much more complicated by also modeling copyright status in the past while distinguishing it from the present by start time (P580)/end time (P582) qualifiers. --Jarekt (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

How can Otto Frank be the "Author" of Anne's Frank's diary? --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

He was the editor (P98) of the 1947 publication Het achterhuis (Q14624856). BTW at that time he claimed he didnt change the text, only created a collection of the diary entries. --Hannolans (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Then he is the "Editor", not the "Author". The copyright statements claim him as author. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that is incorrect, and Anne Frank Foundation doesn't claim he is co-author, see https://www.annefrank.ch/qa.html The issue is that he made editorial choices in which parts to include, and for the diary manuscripts that not all parts where published in the 1947 version. --Hannolans (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rights statements edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Relevant to this subject, I have proposed a "rights statement" property, using the RightsStatements.org statements, here: Wikidata:Property proposal/rights statement. Dominic (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Help:Copyrights edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I began working on Help:Copyrights which I was hoping would become a help page for copyright statements. Please comment (on Help talk:Copyrights) or expand. We can also use more diverse examples. --Jarekt (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

date as necessary qualifiery edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Each creative work will be in public domain when some time passes. So i suppose Wikidata should reflect copyright status for specific periods of time, not in general (current? it will be obsolete in some time) --Infovarius (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Jarekt: could you please add a date too? --Infovarius (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

So far we were mostly adding statements for Public Domain works, and modeling of still copyrighted items still has some uncertainties, for example how to model works with c:template:Own and some free license (Q196294), vs. works with some sort of proprietary license (Q3238057). I agree that still copyrighted works should also use public domain date (P3893). However I do not think any Public Domain works need dates, although it would be fine if they did. I was actually thinking about starting a new discussion at Help talk:Copyrights about modeling of copyrighted statements. I will make sure to include need for public domain date (P3893). --Jarekt (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Author and Editor edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Could someone please help with The Tragedy of King Richard the Second (Q59570050)? This volume is:

public domain in the US by virtue of the publication date (>95 years ago)
public domain outside the US by virtue of the author's date of death William Shakespeare (Q692) (>100 years ago)
under copyright outside the US by virtue of the editor's date of death Llewellyn Morgan Buell (Q59570140) (d. 1975)

The editor wrote all of the footnotes, endnotes, the index, and several appendices. Are we taking this sort of situation into account? I am seeing lots of works like this being tagged as "public domain" even though there is a contributor to the volume such as an editor, illustrator, or translator who died much more recently than the author. How do we indicate copyright based on the editor, illustrator, or translator? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Per our discussion on my talk page I added clarification to The Tragedy of King Richard the Second (Q59570050) that the only applies to body text (Q1378314) within that jurisdiction, and if that fix is deemed sufficient I will apply it to other similar works. Is it sufficient? --Jarekt (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

No, that only partly answers my question. How do we handle the copyright status of the portion of the book created by its editor? 20% of the book consists of editorial notes and appendices with a different copyright status because they were prepared by the editor, and are under copyright in most countries outside the US. How do we indicate this? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

EncycloPetey, how about now. I added copyright statement about front and back matter of a book (Q61782498). --Jarekt (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thanks. It helps to have a model item for these situations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

EncycloPetey, By the way there were only 200-300 items claiming 100 year pma with editor dead least than 100 years ago. Most were dead more than 70 years so I changed the claim to 70 year pma. Few remaining items I just removed 100 year pma claim. So at this point all copyrights should be OK. See below --Jarekt (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

SELECT distinct ?item  ?itemLabel ?copyright ?dod{
	?item wdt:P6216 ?copyright .
	VALUES ?copyright { wd:Q19652 wd:Q15687061 }  # P6216 main value = public domain
	?item wdt:P98/wdt:P570 ?dod .
	FILTER(YEAR(?dod) > 1918)             # exclude if date of death < 1919
	?item p:P6216/pq:P1001 wd:Q60332278 .# exclude if P1001 for USA present
	?item p:P6216/pq:P459  wd:Q29940705 .
	SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en" }
} LIMIT 100

Try it!

Buildings and sculptures in public places edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would it make sense to use the property for buildings and sculptures in public places for use in jurisdictions where there is no Freedom of Panorama? I saw the need for something like this in cases like in Wiki Loves Monuments, or in tools like WikiShootMe where the tool asks to upload a picture that eventually will be deleted because the building/monument/sculpture is still copyrighted. -Geraki (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

This property can be used for all creative architecture and designs, not only in jurisdictions where there is no freedom of panorama. --Hannolans (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What value do I use with determination method (P459) to indicate that a work is public domain in the United States because it was published between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice? I need to add this information on Aida (Q55231785). --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

"possibly copyrighted" or "partially copyrighted" edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Any opinion on how we should model statements in external databases such as "possibly copyrighted" or "partially copyrighted"? For "possibly", I suppose you can do something like nature of statement (P5102)possibly (Q30230067) as a qualifier, but I am not sure which value to use with that qualifier (since technically the meaning is that any is possible). For "partially", I am even less sure, but perhaps something along the lines of applies to part (P518)component (Q1310239) as a qualifier. Or maybe this isn't the right approach and we should create new entity items for these statuses? Example authority list with these concepts: [3]. Thoughts? Dominic (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

We have unknown (Q24238356) if a work is evaluated but it is not known if it is copyrighted or not. We could also create a more specific item specifically for copyright. --Hannolans (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I guess I interpreted "possibly" as slightly different in meaning than "unknown," based on how they define the terms. They have a term for "undetermined" defined as "Use when it is unknown if the archival materials have a use restriction." and "possibly" is "Use if the archival materials may have a use restriction.". Is there a difference between "unknown" and "may have"? I can't really articulate it, but they seem to think so. Dominic (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

archives.gov has a list like right statements, it is not a copyright list. If we have databases that has the concept 'partially copyrighted' I think we should follow them and create an item for that as it is a concept. applies to part (P518) would be better but if the database doesn't say which part, we can't convert it to applies to part (P518). Do you know an online database that uses the concepts you mentioned? --Hannolans (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Hannolans: You're right that the list I linked to does not refer exclusively to copyright (they call it "use restriction status"), but the terms there are the available values for marking copyright restrictions. So, the way they mark a record as partially or possibly restricted due to copyright, is to use that term for the "use restriction" field, and then use "Copyright" as the qualifier for the "specific" use restriction. So this is the copyright status term list, basically. Here is an example so you can see what I mean: [4]. Dominic (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

"determination method" when relying on source's determination edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

How should I fill out the required "determination method" qualifier if the copyright status is based on reliance on a source, rather than our own determination? I think this is a common situation for cultural repositories—if copyright status is listed, it is rare that a justification is provided by the source institution. In this case, we should still import the copyright status, but we need to have a way to state that the determination was made by the dataset owner's determination. Dominic (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

determined by GLAM institution and stated at its website (Q61848113) --Hannolans (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Hannolans: Thanks so much, that's exactly what I needed. Dominic (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Copyleft edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Restriction is copyright, public domain etc. but I cannot found Copyleft. Maybe worth adding? I cannot edit property. --Architekt1024 (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Those are licenses. The works are still copyrighted, but are licensed under a free (copyleft) license. Multichill (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

If that's why you haven't added copylefted to the list of permissible properties, then why is there "Copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder"? Assuming that all this particular property cares about is whether or not it's copyrighted, then I don't think that the 'dedicated to the public domain' clause is strictly necessary. I feel like if you're going to include that in the list of distinctions, then I can't imagine a very compelling reason not to include copylefted. LiftedStarfish (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Oops, added it back in to match the item-requires-statement constraint on copyright license (P275) before I saw this discussion. Perhaps going in the other direction might be desirable? That would be swapping 'copyrighted' for a hypothetical 'copyrighted - no public license'. This would cause constraint errors on most uses of this property, but perhaps it would better clarify the status of the tagged items. Arlo Barnes (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Adding ineligible for copyright protection edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Can/Should we add ineligible for copyright protection (Q61005058) to the list? I saw that it is listed on this page under determination method (P459), but I think it's more like copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder (Q88088423). Being ineligible for copyright protection is in my opinion a copyright status by itself representing a NULL (nil, empty) value since a copyright protection is not possible in the first place afterall. An example would be this image. It is indeed too simple to be eligible for copyright. I don't think that a copyright holder could dedicate it to the public domain.
The main use of adding this would be to tag files on Wikimedia Commons such as the example image. Any thoughts? --D-Kuru (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

D-Kuru I'm not an expert but this seems to be just what I need for The Music of the Spheres: The creator had no right on the characters and settings in the text, so she was unable to distribute it. She herself stated This book cannot be copyrighted🤷. What do you think? --Loominade (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Loominade: Since there was no answer I have asked the global chat: Wikidata:Project_chat#copyright_status_(P6216)

If there is no answer I can only assume that nobody cares and it's therefore OK to add the value

--D-Kuru (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have done so #noonecaresocracy 😅 --Loominade (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@D-Kuru: @Multichill: aaaaand its gone! --Loominade (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Loominade: Thats why I was asking, because I was pretty sure someone who has not participated in any conversation here and did not even leave a (short) note would just undo the edit.

@Multichill: This is the only logical step forward. If public domain is public domain no matter of it's source copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder (Q88088423) must not be listed in there as well. --D-Kuru (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Loominade, D-Kuru: sorry, I overlooked this conversation. This property is to indicate the property status, not why something has a certain property status.

In some countries it's possible to put works in the public domain and in other countries this is impossible so it's copyrighted. copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder (Q88088423) is the item to model that problem and is subclass of both public domain (Q19652) and copyrighted (Q50423863). So it's quite different than ineligible for copyright protection (Q61005058). The blunt removal caused over 6 million constraint violations so I will restore it. Multichill (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

aliases edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Multichill: The reason why I wanted aliases starting with CC for copyright status (P6216) and copyright license (P275) is that when adding statements in the Commons Structured Data view, especially as part of the upload process, one searches for property labels/aliases in order to add them, and typing out 'copy' gives other, not desired results (copyright status as a creator (P7763), copyright representative (P6275), based on (P144), after a work by (P1877), copyright holder (P3931), public domain date (P3893), etc.). Arlo Barnes (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Don't use copylefted edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This property is to document the copyright status. As the first sentence of Copyleft says: "Copyleft is the legal technique of granting certain freedoms over copies of copyrighted works with the requirement that the same rights be preserved in derivative works". So these works are copyrighted, they just have a free copyright license (P275). Multichill (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@aismallard: you seem to have caused the most constraint violations. Can you fix these?

@Middle river exports: I restored the non conflicting version of this property. Please keep it like this. Multichill (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Is P3893 allowed qualifier? edit

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The property definition say that allowed qualifiers constraint (Q21510851) includes public domain date (P3893). And this P3893 appears in the qualifier hint dropdown when I edit values of this property. But when I set P3893 as a qualifier, there is an error warning that it shouldn't be a qualifier: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q188538#P6216. Vladis13 (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vladis13: that's incorrect. I removed public domain date (P3893) from the list because it shouldn't be used as a qualifier, but as a statement, see Property:P3893#P2302. Multichill (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic