Knowledge (XXG):Possibly unfree files/2013 November 17

1157:

possible that it would be more appropriate in the article on the film anyway, as opposed to the article on Bunuel, which is already getting too long and needs some pruning to get it in line with page size guidelines. On the classroom image, I'm not sure what I need to do next. Is it still in peril? Of the two images, I think it's more pertinent to an article on Bunuel, since it illustrates two of his overriding passions at this point in his life. I appreciate your advice.

926:

they were still copyrighted in the country of first publication on the "date of restoration", and the "date of restoration" is 1 January 1996 for most countries. In Spain, copyright expires 80 years after the death of the author. Therefore, all Spanish works published in 1923 or later are all copyrighted in the United States unless the author died before 1916. The film enters the public domain in Spain on 1 January 2064 and in the United States on 1 January 2029. --

1127:, the caption reads: "The classroom scene from Las Hurdes: Tierra Sin Pan is an ironic statement of Buñuel's Marxist sympathies.:p.59" There is also discussion in the article concerning Bunuel's attempt to reconcile Marxism with surrealism. In each case, it's my belief that the image paired with the caption (and text in the article) constitutes "critical commentary". 1107:, in response to the question of how a film falls into the public domain: "The work was either never registered with the United States Copyright Office or the renewal of the registration on the 28th year was not made." If this is not correct, can you point to something that indicates that (e.g. which part of 1001:

I see: you had to search for an English title to find it. The site doesn't claim that the film is in the public domain. Instead, it says that the website holds the copyright to the film ("Copyright © 2010 | by The RetroFilm Vault"). There is no indication that the website has obtained the copyright

948:

JBurlinson can claim fair use for this image, but he has also found that the source, retrofilmvault.com, says it's in the public domain. It surely isn't reasonable to ask him, in addition to this, to determine whether the film was published in the United States within 30 days of its publication in

925:

All Spanish films made in 1923 or later are copyrighted in the United States unless they were published in the United States within 30 days after the initial publication in Spain (which is uncommon and requires very exact publication data). Non-US works do not need a copyright notice or renewal if

594:

Forty years living in Ukraine, but I hear things like this the first time. Could you, please, prove this statement and explaine, what copyright on the plaque could have the person who created it to order of the Kharkov city authorities made for public? I worry about it. If I will make a photo of a

190:

but he later removed the tag with the edit summary "See my talk page - Possible PD heirs situation". According to Sfan00 IMG's talk page, the photo was taken by the uploader's grandmother. The uploader might therefore be a heir of the photographer, provided that the uploader's mother or father is

1122:

Thanks for asking. For this image, there's a caption that reads: "An early scene from Las Hurdes: Tierra Sin Pan depicts a local wedding custom where the bridegroom tears the head off a rooster suspended by its feet from a scaffold above the main street of town.:p.57". For the other image under

1156:

OK. Thanks for catching the copied text. I'll rewrite. I'll also go through the article again to see if there are any more instances of this. At this point, I'm thinking to just let the rooster image be deleted. I'm not sure what else could be said about it along the lines of commentary. It's

949:

Spain, and that's based only on your word (I mean no disrespect by that; it's just that I don't know that what you're saying is correct and I don't know how to find out). Is there a reason you're focusing on these two images specifically and/or a reason that they can't be claimed as fair use?

617:

where there are lots of requests to delete photos of buildings taken without permission from the architect, photos of statues taken without permission from the sculptor and similar things. Toilets are not copyrightable in a lot of countries, but I don't know specifically about Ukraine.

1020:

Actually, the site does claim the film is PD -- there's a statement about all the films they offer on their FAQ page accessible from the url above. The copyright statement is only for the little text blurb about the film, not the film itself.

1054:

I'm trying to understand what you're saying here. If a website that I have no reason to believe is faulty or erroneous makes a claim, it's up to me, as a simple wp editor, to explain why this website makes its claims and then

1145:. That should be rewritten or attributed in the text to the source. Anyway, I think fair use is the way to go here, if the PD is being challenged. I think the Marxism one is fine as it is, because the irony is self-evident. 1039:

be in the public domain in the United States, except in some cases where publication took place in the United States within 30 days after publication in Spain or where the initial publication took place posthumously.

566:

To be honest, I do not understand the question - what copiright could exist on photo of public commemorative plaque placed by local government on public place on public viewing? Sounds some absurdly. --

136: 330: 486: 734: 960:

Where on retrofilmvault.com do I find that claim? Google doesn't find any pages on that site which mention the film title, and a search using the linked search form gets no hits either. --

595:

toilet from my apartment and will place it in Internet, would I be prosecuted for violation of copyrights of the man who instaled it in my lavatory and of the w.c. equipment producer? --

1111:

you're relying on)? Jburlinson, if the film isn't in the public domain, can you claim fair use for this screenshot and support the claim with source material that discusses that shot?

1002:

to the film and there is no explanation as to why the website thinks that the film is in the public domain, and everything else suggests that the film still is copyrighted. --

38: 33: 1035:

Then tell why the website claims that the file is in the public domain and provide evidence that this claim is correct. A Spanish film first published in 1923 or later can

762: 1124: 754: 658: 1175:

and find that this is copyrighted in the United States. The film is not in the public domain in Spain as the author hasn't been dead for at least 80 years. --

514: 892:

Invalid copyright tag: the film is from Spain, not the United States. Renewals are not needed for Spanish films where the author died after 1915, see

780:

Invalid copyright tag: the film is from Spain, not the United States. Renewals are not needed for Spanish films where the author died after 1915, see

1141:

Perhaps more discussion of the scene would satisfy the commentary aspect? Just in passing, I notice that that section of the article is copied from

874: 506: 410: 986:. It says it is a source of public-domain movies, by which it means "expired copyrights or ... not registered for a copyright to begin with ..." 1059:-- is that correct? How in the world am I supposed to go about doing that? Are we supposed to assume bad faith unless we can prove otherwise? 866: 818: 164: 156: 56: 17: 1172: 1108: 358: 100: 294: 614: 450: 350: 249: 112: 698: 306: 130: 118: 1219: 834: 808: 674: 648: 426: 400: 265: 239: 72: 462: 324: 312: 106: 914:

Hi Stefan, are you saying that this and the one above are just wrongly tagged? If so, can you add the correct tags?

710: 580:

You can't take photos of plaques in Ukraine as this violates the copyright of the person who created the plaque. --

480: 468: 300: 124: 728: 716: 456: 318: 704: 600: 571: 474: 1218:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a

1184: 1166: 1151: 1136: 1117: 1068: 1049: 1030: 1011: 996: 969: 955: 935: 920: 905: 859: 807:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a

793: 747: 647:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a

627: 604: 589: 575: 559: 541: 499: 399:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a

385: 343: 238:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a

225: 210: 149: 833: