:''See also the encyclopedia article on the public domain.''
:''WP:PD redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (shortcut: WP:PROD) instead.''

For all practical purposes on Wikipedia, the '''public domain''' comprises copyright-free works: anyone can use them in any way and for any purpose. Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism.

The public domain is generally defined (e.g. by the [http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html#public_domain U.S. Copyright Office]) as the sum of works that are not copyrighted, i.e.
* that were not eligible for copyright in the first place, or
* whose copyright has expired.

However, there is no such thing as ''the'' public domain on the Internet. International treaties, like the Berne Convention, are not self-executing and do not supersede local law. There is [http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl100.html ''no'' globally valid "International Copyright Law"] that would take precedence over local laws. Instead, signatory countries of the Berne Convention have adapted their laws to comply with the minimum standards set forth by the treaty, often with ''stronger'' provisions than required. Whether or not something is copyright-free in some country depends on the laws of individual countries.

Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation, its legal body, are based in Florida, United States. Although legislation is sometimes unclear about which laws are to apply on the Internet, the primary law relevant for Wikipedia is that of the United States. For re-users of Wikipedia content, it is the laws of their respective countries.

In the U.S., any work '''published before January 1, 1923''' ''anywhere in the world''<!--

--><ref name="US1909">Strictly speaking, only U.S. works published before January 1 1923 and foreign works published in compliance with U.S. formalities (registration, © notice) before that date are in the public domain in the U.S. For non-U.S. works published ''without'' compliance with U.S. formalities (i.e., without &copy; notice), the situation is a bit more complicated:
*If published before 1909, such works are in the public domain in the U.S.
*If published between 1909 and 1922 (inclusive) in a language ''other than English'', the Ninth Circuit has considered them as "unpublished works" according to [http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm#Footnote_11 Peter Hirtle] and following the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case ''[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9515250 Twin Books v. Disney]'' in 1996. The case was about the book Bambi, A Life in the Woods; the decision is heavily criticized in ''Nimmer on Copyright'' (ISBN 0-820-51465-9), the standard commentary on U.S. copyright law.
*If published between 1909 and 1922 (inclusive) in English, they are ''highly likely'' to be PD, given that the aforementioned controversial case was only about a work published in a foreign language.
*Additionally, any work first published outside of the United States without copyright notice prior to 1989, when the U.S. joined the Berne Convention, is in the public domain in the U.S. if it was in the public domain in its country of origin on the URAA date (in most cases country-specific rules for more information.
Also, the 1923 cut-off date applies only to the U.S. This means foreign works first published before 1923 are in the public domain in the U.S., but may still be copyrighted outside the U.S.</ref> <!--

-->is in the '''public domain'''. Other countries are ''not'' bound to that 1923 date, though.  Complications arise when special cases are considered, such as  trying to determine whether a work published later might be in the public domain in the U.S., or when dealing with unpublished works. When a work has not been published in the U.S. but in some other country, that other country's copyright laws also must be taken into account. Re-users of Wikipedia content also might find the explanations here useful.

== Important documents ==

* The Berne Convention is the primary legislative document governing international copyright. Signatory states agree to amend their legislations to meet the minimum requirements of this convention, but the convention itself is ''not'' law. Signatory countries have the right to "opt out" from a few of its paragraphs (most are mandatory and non-negotiable, though), and how any particular country implements the Berne Convention is a question of local legislation. The [http://www.wipo.int/clea/docs/en/wo/wo001en.htm full text] of the Berne Convention is available at the WIPO web site.

* The U.S. Copyright Law is [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ Title 17 of the United States Code (17 USC)], chapters 1 through 8 and 10 through 12. Chapters 9 and 13 contain design protection laws on semiconductor chips and ship hulls that are of no interest or relevance for Wikipedia.

* The EU Retroactive changes in copyright legislation below for some discussion.

The U.S. Copyright Law explicitly makes clear that the Berne Convention is just a treaty, not some "super-law" that would take precedence over U.S. Law: [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#104 17 USC 104(c)] states that
:''"No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto...."''
When discussing copyright issues informally (and ''all'' such discussions on Wikipedia ''are'' informal), one may nevertheless argue in terms of the Berne Convention: writing "according to ''§y'' of the Berne Convention..." is then just a short-hand for writing "according to ''§x'' of ''country's copyright law'', which implements ''§y'' of the Berne Convention, ..." However, one should bear in mind that some paragraphs of the Berne Convention are optional, and that any country may go beyond the minimum standards specified by the Berne Convention for the most part.

=== Other documents ===

There are some other documents related to copyright issues that one occasionally comes across, but they generally are less important for Wikipedia's purposes.

*The Universal Copyright Convention ([http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/lipa/copyrights/The%20Universal%20Copyright%20Convention%20_Geneva%20Text--September.pdf 1952 Geneva text], [http://www.ifla.org/documents/infopol/copyright/ucc.txt 1971 Paris text]) was an alternate international copyright treaty. It prescribed less stringent protections than the Berne Convention. Since the UCC explicitly said that if a signatory of the UCC was also a signatory of the Berne Convention, the latter should prevail, and most countries have since joined the Berne Convention, the UCC is largely irrelevant today. However, the adherence dates of some states to the UCC may still be of interest.
*The Rome Convention ([http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/rome/index.html International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations]) from 1961 is a treaty augmenting the Berne Convention by copyright on performances and recordings thereof. 
*The sound recordings.
*The DMCA.
*The Rome Convention. In the U.S., it was implemented as part of the DMCA.

== Works ineligible for copyright protection ==

:'''In short: U.S. Federal Government works, or no creative content'''

:''See also:'' Copyright on emblems.

=== U.S. government works ===

For the U.S., federal government works are not eligible for copyright protection ([http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105 17 USC 105]). It is not clear whether this applies world-wide, see the [http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#317 CENDI Copyright FAQ list, 3.1.7] and a discussion on that at the [http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2004/09/copyright_in_go.html LibraryLaw Blog].

In practice, this means that ''much'' material on <tt>*.gov</tt> and <tt>*.mil</tt>, as well as material on some <tt>*.us</tt> web sites (such as the sites of the U.S. Forest Service), are in the public domain. Please note that not ''all'' such material is in the public domain, though:
* U.S. governmental web sites may use copyrighted works, too; either by having licensed them or under a "fair use" provision. In general, such copyrighted works on web sites of the U.S. federal government and its agencies are indicated by appropriate bylines. An example are "visitor image galleries" on U.S. National Park Service websites: unless these have some indication that the photographs are placed in the public domain by publishing them on that NPS web site, these images are copyrighted by their photographers, who are visitors of national parks, not employees of the NPS.
* Some U.S. ''state'' governments also have web sites in the <tt>*.gov</tt> domain. '''State and local governments''' usually ''do'' retain a copyright on their works. 17 USC §105 only places ''federal'' documents in the public domain.<ref name="state_pubs">Publications of U.S. ''state'', district, county, or municipal agencies are eligible to coypright. Only works of ''federal'' agencies are exempt from copyright; see [http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241476.html Radcliffe & Brinson: ''Copyright Law''], or the [http://cendi.dtic.mil/publications/04-8copyright.html#30 CENDI Copyright FAQ list, 3.1.3].</ref>
* Works produced under a commission from the U.S. government by a contractor ''are'' most likely copyrighted. This typically includes any documents from research labs. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for instance, is operated by a contractor for the U.S. Department of Energy, but that does not mean the works it produces are "works of the federal government". ORNL works ''are'' copyrighted, and the U.S. government is granted a non-exclusive license to use, publish, and allow republication of such works. The precise terms vary from one lab to the next, but in general, commercial re-use of their works is prohibited.<ref name="contractors">[http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#40 CENDI Copyright FAQ list, section 4.0], and [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105 17 USC 105].</ref>
* Even the U.S. federal government may hold copyrights, if the original copyright holder assigns or transfers the copyright to the U.S. government.  A notable example of this is the obverse of the Sacagawea dollar, which its designer Glenna Goodacre copyrighted before she transferred the design and its copyright to the United States Mint.<ref name="sacagawea"> See "Intellectual Property Rights" in the U.S. Mint website's privacy policy [http://www.usmint.gov/policy/index.cfm?action=TermsOfUse#rights]. </ref>

Under U.S. law, laws themselves and legal rulings also form a special class.  All current or formerly binding laws, codes, and regulations produced by government at any level and the public record of any court case are in the public domain. [http://www.baconsrebellion.com/Issues04/08-09/Dale.htm]  This applies even to the laws enacted in states and municipalities that ordinarily claim copyright over their work.  The US Copyright Office has interpreted this as applying to all "edicts of government" both domestic and foreign.<ref name="compendium206_01">The Compendium of Copyright Office Practices (Compendium II) section 206.01 [http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightCompendium/chapter_0200.asp states], "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments." and 206.03 [http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightCompendium/chapter_0200.asp clarifies] "Works (other than edicts of government) prepared by officers or employees of any government (except the U.S. Government) including State, local, or foreign governments, are subject to registration if they are otherwise copyrightable."</ref>

Note that other countries' governments ''may'' hold copyrights; in fact, most do so and their works are thus copyright protected. At the same time, many countries declare their edicts such as laws and court decisions to be exempt from copyright. Such exemptions are typically narrowly defined and ''cannot'' be construed to mean "any publication by a government office".

The U.S. Copyright Office has clarified that works of the OAS are subject to copyright.<ref name="us_un">See 206.02(b), 206.02(c), 206.02(d), and 206.02(e), and 206.03 of the [http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightCompendium/chapter_0200.asp Compendium of Copyright Office Practices] of the U.S. Copyright Office, and also [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#104 17 USC 104(b)(5)].</ref> On the UN, see Works of the United Nations for some important exceptions: some UN documents ''are'' in the public domain.

=== Non-creative works ===

:'''In short: Bare facts are in the public domain. Works must show sufficient ''human'' creativity to be eligible to copyright at all.'''

A second category of works that in general cannot be copyright protected are those that have no (or no significant) creative content: they do not pass the threshold of originality.  In the U.S., the classic example is a telephone directory.  The names and numbers therein are, in the doctrine of case law (e.g. ''Feist v. Rural''), "facts that were discovered", rather than the result of a creative expression or judgment.  The U.S. has explicitly rejected the position that the amount of effort involved in the discovery of a fact can justify its protection.  As a result of this doctrine, addresses, phone numbers, most scientific data, sports scores, the results of polls, and similar facts are exempt from copyright.

While the facts themselves are exempt, other creative elements in a compilation of facts may warrant copyright protection.  For example, ''Eckes v. Card Prices Update'' established that the specific selection of which facts to include in a list, when done as the result of a creative act, merits protection even when the individual elements do not. (See also [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#103 17 USC 103(b)].) The WIPO Copyright Treaty is an international treaty that follows this concept; it has been adopted also by the European Union (EU) in its EU Database Directive, a ''sui generis'' protection that prohibits any significant "extraction" or "re-utilization" of information from a database created by significant effort. In all these cases, the copyright is on the database as a whole, i.e. the selection of the collection. The individual items in such databases still have their own copyright, which may have expired.

Similarly, though scientific data are usually exempt from copyright, the specific figures and styles of presentation used to present that data will in most cases merit copyright protection. Also, in some cases facts that are exempt from copyright may still be protected as a result of patent law.

thumb|This painting was produced by the chimpanzee "[[Congo (chimpanzee)|Congo" and is therefore not copyrighted. The photo of the painting is not copyrightable per the ''Bridgeman v. Corel'' ruling.]]
Another class of uncreative works which are unable to claim copyright protection in the U.S. are those resulting from mechanical reproduction.  Following ''Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.'', a simple reproductive photograph of a two-dimensional artwork does not give rise to a new copyright on the photograph. Many other countries (but not all!) recognize a similar ineligibility for copyright for reproductive photographs of two-dimensional public domain works.

Common to all these cases is that only works created by a human are eligible to copyright.<ref name="human_creativity">U.S. Copyright Office: [http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightCompendium/chapter_0200.asp ''Compendium of Office Practices II,'' section 202.02(b)] and [http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightCompendium/chapter_0500.asp section 503.03(a)]. URL last accessed July 3, 2007.</ref> Works created by animals (such as a painting produced by a chimpanzee) or machines (such as illegal spam) are not copyrightable, although in the case of drawings produced by a computer program, the program itself of course may be copyrighted. In certain cases, even graphics produced by computer programs may be copyrightable; see e.g. ''Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman''.

Descriptions (including diagrams) in patent applications in the U.S. are "published into the public domain" by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office [http://www.uspto.gov/main/ccpubguide.htm]. Portions may contain the non-obligatory notice of copyright © or mask work Ⓜ protection, but the patent applicant must state in the text of the description that the owner of the rights in the protected part agrees to allow anyone to make facsimile reproductions of those portions of the description, but otherwise reserves all rights [http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_1_71.htm#cfr37s1.71 37 CFR § 1.71(e)].

Photographic reproductions, as a form of derivative work, may inherit the copyright of the original work.  If that artwork is in the public domain, then so is the photograph. If, however, the depicted work is copyright protected, then, although there is no independent copyright on the photo itself, it cannot be considered to be in the public domain as the original rights holder still has the authority to control how reproductions of his work, including photographs, are made and distributed. The same applies to digitized images.

It should also be noted that the exemption of reproduction photographs extends only to ''two-dimensional'' artwork in the U.S.  A photograph of a three dimensional statue may acquire copyright protection even if the statue itself belongs to the public domain.  Such rights derive from the creativity involved in the positioning of camera, lighting, and other variables.

In the U.S., the ''[http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightCompendium/chapter_0500.asp Compendium of Office Practices II]'' of the U.S. Copyright Office gives some concrete examples and hints at under what conditions a work is sufficiently original to be eligible for copyright.

=== Fonts ===
:'''In short: Scalable fonts ''as such'' are copyrighted as computer programs; typefaces ''as such'' may be protected by design patents, and, in a few countries, by copyright; ''actual use'' of the typeface is not restricted, even if the font used was based illegally on a protected typeface.'''

Under U.S. law, rasterized representation (e.g. bitmap) of the characters in a scalable font is not protected by copyright in the United States. According to section [http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightCompendium/chapter_0500.asp 503.02(a)] of ''Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices'', typography and calligraphy are not copyrightable in themselves in the U.S. This treatment of fonts is not very unusual with respect to international law, and most other jurisdictions do not consider fonts subject to copyright either (with the notable exception of the UK, which however also only covers typefaces as such, as they are for example employed in fonts, and not their actual use<ref>[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_4.htm#mdiv54 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>). However, typefaces as such may be protected by design patents in many countries (either automatically, or by registration, or by some combination thereof). A prominent example is the European Union,<ref>[http://oami.europa.eu/en/design/faq/faq01.htm#200 OAMI-ONLINE - The Community Design in Practice<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> where the automatic protection (without registration) expires after three years and can be extended (by registration) up to 25 years.<ref>[http://oami.europa.eu/en/design/faq/faq01.htm#500 OAMI-ONLINE - The Community Design in Practice<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

=== International aspects ===

:'''In short: The threshold of originality varies between countries.'''

Like the duration of copyright, eligibility to copyright in the first place is governed by national laws. The [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P109_16834 Berne Convention, §5(2)] explicitly states that
:''The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights ''[i.e., copyrights]'' shall not be subject to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of ''[copyright]'' protection in the country of origin of the work.''
In other words: a work that is not copyrightable in one country (even if that country is its country of origin) can still be copyrighted in other countries, if the work is copyrightable there. An example of this is :Image:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg: this image is not copyrightable in its country of origin (Switzerland) by a decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. However, in all likelihood it fulfills the criteria in other countries: it would pass the threshold of originality in the U.S.; and it would probably also be eligible for copyright in the EU.

Mere ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such are not copyrightable as per article 2 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty.<ref name="wct">[http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html#P51_3806 WIPO Copyright Treaty], article 2: ''Scope of Copyright Protection''. URL last accessed June 21, 2006.</ref>

== Publication ==

:'''In short: A work is published when tangible ''copies'' of it are made available to the public at large.'''

In the following, we will frequently refer to the "publication" of a work. A work is published when copies of the work are made accessible in some non-ephemeral form to the public at large with the consent of its author or copyright holder. Ephemeral forms of making the work accessible do ''not'' constitute publication. To quote the [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P98_14701 Berne Convention, §3.3]:
:''The performance of a dramatic, dramatico-musical, cinematographic or musical work, the public recitation of a literary work, the communication by wire or the broadcasting of literary or artistic works, the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication.''

The U.S. Copyright law defines "publication" in [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101 17 USC 101] in basically the same way using different words:

:''"Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.''

"Public display" includes broadcasts and other transmissions. The U.S. Copyright Office states in its [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40.html#publication Circular 40]:
:''A work of art that exists in only one copy, such as a painting or statue, is not regarded as published when the single existing copy is sold or offered for sale in the traditional way, for example, through an art dealer, gallery, or auction house. A statue erected in a public place is not necessarily published.''

:''When the work is reproduced in multiple copies, such as reproductions of a painting or castings of a statue, the work is published when the reproductions are publicly distributed or offered to a group for further distribution or public display.''

Thus, a work is ''unpublished'' unless copies (which may be print publications, photos, postcards, lithographs, but also non-print publications such as replicas of a statuette) of it are published. It is of course implied that such a distribution of copies occurred legally, in particular with the consent of the copyright holder. An illegal distribution of copies (for instance one that itself would be a copyright violation) does ''not'' constitute a publication of a work. The right to publish a work is an ''exclusive'' right of the copyright owner (17 USC 106), and violating this right (e.g. by disseminating copies of the work without the copyright owner's consent) is a 17 USC 501(a)), and the copyright owner can demand (by suing in court) that e.g. copies distributed against his will be confiscated and destroyed (17 USC 502, 17 USC 503).

Notwithstanding the quoted paragraph from the Berne Convention, broadcast and public performance of literary or dramatic works may constitute publication in other countries, e.g. in Australia (see [http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/InfoSheets/G023.pdf Infosheet G-23: Duration of Copyright]).

We will get back to this issue in the sections "Published works" and "Unpublished works" below.

== When does copyright expire? ==

:'''In short: It depends, but always at the end of the year in which it expires.'''

The Berne Convention was designed to ensure that works protected in the country of origin were also protected in all other signatory countries without the rights holder having to register claims in each and every of these countries. Thus the laws of the originating country of a work determine whether something is copyright protected at all, and if so, the Berne Convention ensures that it is automatically copyright protected in all other signatory countries, too, ''under their respective laws'' (§5(1) of the Berne Convention).

(The ''originating country'' or ''country of origin'' is that country where the work was initially published, or in the case of unpublished works, defined by the author's nationality or "habitual domicile". See §3 of the Berne Convention. If a work is published within 30 days in several countries, it can have multiple "countries of origin".)

Copyright protection is granted only for a certain period of time&mdash;barring pathological cases where some work is placed under a perpetual copyright protection. Different countries have different copyright terms: in some countries, copyright expires 50 years after the author's death (also called "50 years p.m.a.", ''post mortem auctoris''; this is the minimum standard required by the Berne Convention), others have a 70-year period (70y p.m.a.), Mexico even [http://www.ladas.com/BULLETINS/2004/0304Bulletin/Mexico_CopyrightLaw.html 100y p.m.a.] Many countries also have special rules, depending on when a work was first published, whether it was first published in that country or not, whether the author is known or not, and other things. For instance, a work published with a © notice in the U.S. between 1963 and 1977 (inclusive) is copyright protected in the U.S. until 95 years after the date of the initial publication.  Peter Hirtle has compiled a [http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm very useful chart] showing when and under what conditions the copyright of a work expires in the U.S. The default rule in the U.S. for works published since 1978 or for unpublished works is 70 years p.m.a. If a work is a "work made for hire", it has corporate authorship and is protected to the shorter of 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation. Many countries also know or at least knew different copyright terms for text and photographic works.

Basically all countries in the world specify that when a copyright expires, it does so at the ''end of the year''. Thus, works of an author who died on June 27, 1937 did ''not'' become copyright-free on June 28, 2007 but only on January 1, 2008 under a "70 years p.m.a." rule.

=== Rule of the shorter term ===

:'''In short: The "rule of the shorter term" says that copyright protection in any signatory country of the Berne Convention ends when the copyright expires in the originating country. This rule is ''not'' binding. The U.S. has ''not'' adopted it; the European Union (with exceptions!), Japan, Macao, and Taiwan ''have'' done so.'''

While the Berne Convention ''does'' harmonize bringing works under copyright protection in the first place, it does ''not'' similarly harmonize the expiration of copyright. The Berne Convention prescribes a minimum standard for copyright terms any signatory country must adhere to (50y p.m.a.), but any signatory is free to prescribe longer durations in its laws. To be fair, §7(8) of the Berne Convention ''does'' specify a "rule of the shorter term", which says that the copyright term can in no case exceed the copyright term in the originating country of a work. However, signatory countries have the right to "opt out" from this rule, and it depends on individual countries' implementation acts whether they do follow this rule.  The copyright on a work may thus expire in one country and enter the public domain there, but the same work ''may still be copyrighted'' in other signatory countries.

The United States does ''not'' recognize this "shorter term" rule while 17&nbsp;U.S.C.&nbsp;104(c) reads: "Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto." Furthermore, 17&nbsp;U.S.C.&nbsp;104A(a)(1)(B) may restore copyright on a work published outside the USA for the remaining American copyright term even if its copyright may expire sooner in its source country.

The EU directive 93/98/EEC). ''Within'' the EU itself, however, the contrary is true: §10(1) states that longer terms already running remained in effect, and §10(2) states that the 70 year p.m.a. applied to all works protected in at least one member country. As a result, there is a transitory phase in which works that already were out of copyright in one EU country suddenly became copyright protected again in that country on July 1, 1995 because they were still protected in some other EU country. See "World-War II images" below.

In East Asia, Decree-Law n.o 43/99/M of Macao, and Article 106bis of the Copyright Act in effect in Taiwan administered by the Republic of China.

However, some countries make exceptions to this rule. A notorious case is Germany, which has had a bilateral treaty with the U.S. governing copyright since January 15, 1892. That treaty, which is still in effect, defined that a U.S. work was copyrighted in Germany according to German law irrespective of the work's copyright status in the U.S, and it did not contain a "rule of the shorter term". In one [http://web2.justiz.hessen.de/migration/rechtsp.nsf/bynoteid/8019B44ABE988A9CC1256E55004A0462?Opendocument case], a German court therefore decided that a U.S. work that had fallen into the public domain in the U.S. was still copyrighted in Germany in 2003 in spite of §7(1) of the EU directive.

See also OpenFlix for a useful [http://www.openflix.com/information/non-US-copyright.php list] of countries and areas that do or do not honor the rule of the shorter term.

== Country-specific rules ==

:'''In short: First publication is important, but difficult to ascertain.'''

:''See also Commons:Licensing and Non-US copyrights.''

Because copyright expiry is governed by local laws, some special noteworthy cases exist, in particular for ''photographs''. These cases are interesting for Wikipedia if a work was not published in the U.S., because then, the law of the originating country must be examined. There is a whole slew of country-specific image copyright tags for precisely that purpose; see the list of image copyright tags. However, being in the public domain in its home country ''does not'' automatically mean that the work was also in the public domain in the U.S. because the U.S. does ''not'' follow the "rule of shorter term". Wherever these country-specific tags are used, they should be accompanied by a rationale explaining why the image is thought to be in the public domain in the U.S., too. (Remember that Wikipedia is primarily subject to U.S. law!)

Some examples of such country-specific rules are:
*In Australia, the copyright on published photographs taken before May 1, 1969 expired 50 years after the creation. (For photographs taken later, it expired 50 years after the first publication.) As a result of the Australia-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA), new legislation became effective on January 1, 2005, extending the copyright term (also on photographs) generally to 70 years p.m.a, but explicitly ruling out a revival of copyright on works whose copyright had already expired. Any photographs created before January 1, 1955 are thus in the public domain in Australia. The same also holds true for other works, which were protected 50 years p.m.a. prior to January 1, 2005: any work published before 2005 of an author who died before January 1, 1955 is in the public domain in Australia. See [http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/InfoSheets/G023.pdf Infosheet G-23: Duration of Copyright] by the Australian Copyright Council. These rules even apply for works where the government holds the copyright, i.e. that are under Crown copyright. (There is the template  for tagging such images.) See also copyright expiration in Australia.
*In Canada, any photograph created (not published!) before January 1, 1949 and not covered by Crown copyright is in the public domain. This is a consequence of the Canadian [http://www.parl.gc.ca/bills/government/C-32/C-32_4/C-32TOCE.html  Bill C-32: An Act to Amend the Copyright Act], which replaced the old rule for photographs ("copyright expires 50 years after creation of the work") by 50 years p.m.a., but ''not'' retroactively applying the new rule to works that were already in the public domain by the effective date of the bill, January 1, 1999 (see [http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/archives/photos/photrepr.htm] at the bottom). Wikipedia has the template  for tagging such images.

For an exhaustive list of the ''current'' situation in many countries, see sound recordings made prior to February 15, 1972'') not published in the U.S., the following rule applies:

:'''''If the work was in the public domain in the country of origin as of January 1, 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S.''''' (Even if it was published after 1923, but only if no copyright had been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.)

sound recordings below). If the country of origin became a member of the Berne Convention or the two WIPO treaties or the WTO only after January 1, 1996, the URAA still applies and that country's earliest adherence date to any of these treaties or organizations must be taken as the URAA copyright restoration date instead of January 1, 1996.

For the above cases, this means:
*Australian photographs taken before January 1, 1946, not published in the U.S., and where no copyright was registered in the U.S., are in the public domain in Australia and the U.S.
*Other works first published in Australia whose author has died before January 1, 1946 and where no copyright was registered in the U.S. are also in the public domain in Australia and the U.S.
*Canadian photographs taken before January 1, 1946, not subject to Crown copyright, not published in the U.S., and where no copyright was registered in the U.S. are in the public domain in Canada and the U.S.

Additionally, because of the rule of the shorter term, such photographs are likely to be also in the public domain in Europe and in Japan, unless published there. (For the EU, one may probably even apply the 1955 and 1949 cut-off dates.)

The obvious difficulty here is to show that any particular work was indeed ''not'' published in the U.S, especially when considering works by Canadians. Even worse, one has to show that the work was indeed first published in Australia or Canada, respectively. If it ''was'' published in the U.S., the whole deliberation about copyright expiry in other countries does not come to play at all&mdash;the work is copyrighted in the U.S. (unless it was published before 1923, or in a few very specific, difficult to verify cases, see "published works" below). If the work was published first in some third country&mdash;such as the United Kingdom&mdash;that third country is the country of origin, and consequently, one has to apply ''that'' country's copyright regulations to determine whether the work's copyright had expired by January 1, 1996. There are some other problems, too:
* If a work has multiple countries of origin because it was published in several countries within 30 days, it is unclear what rules would apply. Most probably, the copyright on the work would have to be expired in ''all'' of them by January 1, 1996 for the work to be in the public domain in the U.S.
* It is entirely unclear how retroactive legislation would affect this rule. What if a work had been in the public domain in its country of origin on January 1, 1996, but that country subsequently modified its copyright laws such that the work's copyright was reactivated?

In summary, the rules in the U.S. for works published abroad are as follows:
*If the work was published before 1923, it is in the public domain in the U.S.<ref name="US1909"/> (With a caveat for works published without copyright notice, see the footnote.)
*If the work was published 1923 to 1995 (inclusive) and not copyrighted in its countries of origin in 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S.
*Otherwise, if the work was published before 1978, it is copyrighted in the U.S. for 95 years since the original publication (i.e. at least until 1923 + 95 = 2018), and if it was published 1978 or later, the work is copyrighted until 70 years after the (last surviving) author's death.

While the author of a photograph can often be determined quite easily, it may be rather difficult to ascertain where and when a particular image was first published. And strictly speaking one would also have to verify that a non-U.S. work was not covered by copyright in the U.S. by virtue of some external links" section below). Country-specific public domain tags must therefore be used with the utmost care only.

=== Crown copyrights ===

:'''In short: UK Crown copyright expires world-wide.'''

Crown copyright is a special form of copyright on governmental works (including works made by employees of government agencies in the course of their duties) that exists in the United Kingdom and a number of other Commonwealth realms. Crown copyright for published works generally lasts for 50 years since the first publication (this is true not only for the UK but also e.g. for Canada or Australia). When Crown copyright expires on a work in its country of origin, the work enters the public domain in that country, but ''it may still be copyrighted in other signatory countries of the Berne Convention'' because these other countries apply their own laws, which may have longer copyright terms and not even know the concept of a "Crown copyright". (See e.g. [http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/conf/dac/en/sterling/sterling.html Sterling 1995]  towards the end, section titled "Protection of Crown copyright in other countries".)

An exception to this is ''UK Crown copyright''. Although UK works on which the Crown copyright has expired also could still be copyrighted elsewhere, the British Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI), which manages all Crown copyrights on behalf of the coypright holder (the Crown), has explicitly stated in an [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-May/022055.html e-mail] to Wikipedia that they consider UK Crown copyright expiry to apply ''world-wide''.

There is a [http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/crown-a.pdf flowchart] explaining the precise rules for UK Crown copyright expiry. For photographs the rules are as follows:
*For photographs taken before June 1, 1957, Crown copyright expires 50 years after the ''creation'' of the image. All such photographs are therefore in the public domain.
*For photographs taken after that date and published before August 1, 1989, Crown copyright expires 50 years after the first ''publication''. For photographs created between these two dates, but published only on or after the 1989 date, Crown copyright expires on December 31, 2039.
*For photographs created on or after August 1, 1989, Crown copyright expires 125 years after the creation or 50 years after the first publication of the image, whatever is earlier.

There is the template  to tag images which are claimed to be in the public domain under these rules.

Companies House - When downloading accounts for a Company listed, they are free of copyright and may be posted on any website.  The are public record and statutory.  The situation is the same for birth and death certificates.  There is no copyright for this type of public record.  Please see www.companieshouse.gov.uk.

=== Works of the United Nations ===

:'''In short: parliamentary documentation (official records, such as resolutions) and documents ''not'' offered for sale are in the public domain; ''other'' UN documents ''are'' copyrighted.'''

Works of the United Nations or one of its bodies are generally copyrighted.<ref name="us_un"/><ref name="un_st_ai_2001_5">United Nations, administrative instruction ST/AI/2001/5: ''[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN006342.pdf United Nations Internet publishing, section 5: Copyright policy and disclaimers]'', August 22, 2001. Also see §3.29 ("Use of photos") of that document. URL last accessed 2006-11-08.</ref> In the interest of facilitating dissemination, the UN ''explicitly excludes'' some categories of its works from this general copyright and places them into the public domain: UN parliamentary documentation as well as public information material published under the UN document symbol ''and not offered for sale''.<ref name="un_st_ai_2001_5"/> Such documents are in the public domain. UN parliamentary documentation comprises a broad set of official reports prepared by the UN secretariat and the UN official records.<ref name="un_glossary">United Nations: UN OIOS Glossary, entry on ''[http://www.un.org/Depts/oios/mecd/mecd_glossary/documents/set_p.htm#p_documentation Parliamentary documentation]''. URL last accessed 2006-11-08.</ref> UN official records are
:"publications relating to proceedings of organs or conferences of the United Nations. They include verbatim or summary records, documents and check-lists of documents, issued in the form of annexes to those records, including periodic supplements, such as the quarterly ones of the Security Council; and the reports of those organs of subordinate or affiliated bodies, compilations of resolutions, certain reports of the Secretary-General, and other selected publications"<ref name="un_pub_guide">United Nations, administrative instruction ''ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2''. URL last accessed ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2/Add.2'' in 1992.</ref>
UN resolutions are therefore in the public domain world-wide. Concerning images one should bear in mind that the UN may include in their publications (in print, on the Internet, or otherwise) images from third parties for which the UN has obtained an appropriate license.<ref name="un_st_ai_2001_5"/> Such third-party images retain their copyright, even if published in an otherwise public domain UN document as mentioned above. Only UN images appearing in such documents may be assumed to be in the public domain.

== Published works ==

:'''In short: Copyright notices are not needed anymore.'''

Under the Berne Convention, copyright is ''automatic'': no registration is needed, and it is not even necessary to display a copyright notice with the work for it to be copyright protected. Prior to the U.S. adopting the Berne Convention (by amending its copyright law through the [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d100:HR04262:@@@L&summ2=m& Berne Convention Implementation Act], effective March 1, 1989), this was not the case in the U.S. A work was only copyrighted if published with a copyright notice, which could be as simple as a line saying "© year copyright holder". For U.S. works there are therefore some special cases that place even works published after 1923 in the public domain. However, the necessary conditions are hard to verify.

*Published in the U.S., ''without'' a copyright notice:
**From 1923 to 1977: in the public domain
**From 1978 to March 1, 1989: only in the public domain if not registered since.
*Published in the U.S., ''with'' a copyright notice:
**From 1923 to 1963: only in the public domain if copyright not renewed. This may be hard to determine, and if renewed, the protection runs until 95 years after the initial publication. See the external links below and [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.html Circular 22 of the U.S. Copyright Office] for information on how to search the registry of the U.S. Copyright Office for copyright registrations and renewals.
**From 1964 to 1977: not in the public domain for some time to come; copyright expires 95 years after the original publication.
**From 1978 to March 1, 1989: current standard rules apply (see just below).

'''Höfundaréttur''' varir í takmarkaðan tíma. Samkvæmt íslenskum höfundalögum varir höfundaréttur að bókmennta- og listaverkum í 70 ár eftir dauða höfundar. Ef höfundur er ókunnur varir rétturinn þó aðeins í 70 ár eftir útgáfu. Höfundaréttur að hljóðupptökum og ljósmyndum sem ekki eru listaverk varir í 50 ár eftir að þær eru teknar. Verk sem ekki eru lengur háð höfundarétti verða hér kölluð '''almenningur''' (enska „public domain“) og þau má nota á Wikipediu.

==Fræðitextar==

Wikipedia getur hagnýtt texta sem eru í almenningi. Texti úr gömlum fræðiritum getur til dæmis myndað undirstöðu fyrir nýjar greinar eða hluta af greinum. Greinin Heimdallur notar til dæmis texta eftir fræðimanninn Finn Jónsson sem dó 1934. Að nota gamlan texta á þennan hátt er fljótleg leið til að bæta upplýsingum við Wikipediu. Hún er þó alls ekki gallalaus. Grein Finns er fróðleg og nokkuð ítarleg en brátt verður liðin öld síðan hún var skrifuð og skilningi manna á goðafræði hefur farið fram síðan þá. Finnur er þarna auk þess nokkuð fullyrðingaglaður og ekki jafnhlutlaus í umfjöllun og æskilegt er að Wikipedia sé. Þar sem texti hans er í almenningi er þó hverjum sem er heimilt að breyta honum og bæta og hafa sumir mestu vankantarnir þegar verið sniðnir af.

==Ljósmyndalist==
thumb|right|250px|Sigfús Eymundsson tók þessa ljósmynd af fyrsta bílnum á Íslandi árið 1904. Hún er í almenningi, jafnvel þótt hún yrði talin listaverk.
Þekktasti íslenski ljósmyndarinn sem nú er ótvírætt kominn í almenning er Sigfús Eymundsson (1837 - 1911). Hann tók fjöldamargar myndir bæði af Reykjavík og bæjum úti á landi en auk þess myndir af fólki og atburðum. Margar þeirra myndu sóma sér vel í greinum á Wikipediu. Af öðrum ljósmyndurum má nefna Pétur Brynjólfsson (1882-1930), sem tók margar fróðlegar myndir í Reykjavík, og Magnús Ólafsson (1862-1937). Magnús var mjög afkastamikill og kunnáttusamur ljósmyndari og eftir hann liggja margar af þekktustu íslensku ljósmyndunum frá fyrri hluta 20. aldar. Öll verk hans eru laus undan höfundarétti síðan 1. janúar 2008.

Flestar gamlar ljósmyndir af þessu tagi eru geymdar í söfnum eins og Þjóðminjasafninu eða Ljósmyndasafni Reykjavíkur. Bæði þessi söfn sýna hluta af ljósmyndakosti sínum á netinu en yfirleitt er þá einhvers konar vatnsmerki bætt við myndirnar til að torvelda notkun þeirra. Því verður að leita á önnur mið til að nálgast ljósmyndir og oft lítið annað að gera en að skanna þær inn úr útgefnum bókum.

Hugsanlegt er að í einhverjum tilfellum þurfi svo mikla kunnáttusemi og listfengi til að framkalla og prenta gamla ljósmynd — filman eða glerplatan er ef til vill verulega löskuð — að til verði eitthvað sem gæti kallast sjálfstætt höfundaverk og að nýr höfundaréttur verði til þeim til handa sem endurgerir myndina. Venjulega er þó ekki ástæða til að hafa áhyggjur af þessum möguleika nema eitthvað í þessa veru sé sérstaklega tekið fram í heimildinni sem notuð er. Mjög ólíklegt er að venjuleg framköllun og prentun á mynd teljist nýtt listaverk.

==Ljósmyndir sem ekki eru listaverk==
thumb|right|250px|Finnska höfundaréttarráðið hefur úrskurðað að þótt þessi ljósmynd sé af sögulegum atburði sé hún "aðeins venjuleg fréttaljósmynd" og njóti ekki höfundaréttar sem listaverk. Myndu íslenskir dómstólar komast að sömu niðurstöðu?
Í íslenskum höfundalögum segir: „Til bókmennta og lista teljast samið mál í ræðu og riti, leiksviðsverk, tónsmíðar, myndlist, byggingarlist, kvikmyndir, '''ljósmyndalist''', nytjalist og aðrar samsvarandi listgreinar, á hvern hátt og í hverju formi sem verkið birtist.“ Ljóst er því að þær ljósmyndir sem heyra undir ljósmyndalist njóta verndar í 70 ár eftir dauða höfundar. Þetta á hins vegar ekki við um allar ljósmyndir. Í 49. grein laganna er vikið að ljósmyndum "sem ekki njóta verndar laga þessara sem listaverk" og kemur í ljós að þær njóta einkaréttar sem er hliðstæður við höfundarétt í 50 ár eftir að þær eru gerðar.

Lögin gefa engar beinar leiðbeiningar um það hvaða ljósmyndir teljist listaverk og hverjar ekki. Til að skýra lögin má reyna að leita í greinargerðina með þeim frá því að þau voru til meðferðar á Alþingi. Þar má lesa:

:Ljósmyndagerð á sér ekki langa sögu og er í nánari tengslum við tækni en hin eldri myndlist. Alþjóðleg viðurkenning er samt fengin á því, að ljósmyndaverk geti haft listgildi. Í Bernarsáttmálanum, eins og frá honum var gengið árið 1948, eru ljósmyndaverk nefnd í flokki þeirra listgreina, sem undir höfundarétt falla. Samt er ljóst, að þetta á ekki við um meginhluta ljósmynda, sem er á venjulegu iðnaðarsviði. ... Í 1. gr. gildandi laga nr. 49 frá 1943 eru ljósmyndir taldar meðal verndaðra verka, og tekur það vitanlega aðeins til listrænna ljósmynda. Þykir ekki þörf að gera breytingu á þessu, enda er þá líka fullnægt kröfum Bernarsáttmálans. Um vernd annarra ljósmynda eru svo sett sérákvæði í 49. gr. - Alþingistíðindi 1971-A, síða 1278. 

Þarna kemur skýrt fram að flestar ljósmyndir séu ekki listaverk enda sé meginhluti þeirra "á venjulegu iðnaðarsviði". Þetta er ennþá ekki fullkomlega ljóst en hér getur varla verið átt við fjölskyldumyndir. Líklegra virðist að átt sé við að atvinnuljósmyndarar séu venjulega ekki að framleiða listaverk heldur stunda iðngrein, svipað og iðnaðarmenn sem mála hús. Hættulegt væri þó að túlka þetta þannig að hvaða fréttaljósmynd sem er sé ekki listaverk. Þær sem þykja sérlega fallegar og vel heppnaðar geta endað á listsýningum og verið prentaðar aftur og aftur. Það er þá skýr vísbending um að slík mynd hafi verulegt listrænt gildi.

Eftir því sem sá sem þetta skrifar kemst næst hefur aðeins einu sinni komið mál fyrir Hæstarétt þar sem munurinn á ljósmyndalist og öðrum ljósmyndum var nefndur til sögunnar. Þar bar hins vegar svo við að bæði verjandi og sækjandi voru sammála um að myndirnar væru listaverk, enda höfðu þær verið valdar til að setja á sýningu erlendis. Hæstiréttur skoðaði því ekki myndirnar og lagði ekki sjálfstætt mat á listrænt gildi þeirra.