Topic on User talk:Hannolans

Hannolans,I think Hitler and Mannerheim recording (Q16843982) need some reference to support the fact that it is considered PD. It is unclear to me why we would make such determination. We should also determine jurisdiction.

Hmm, good point. I was referencing to Q61955291 a case in the Netherlands. But we need those cases or literature for every jurisdiction to declare what is or is not copyrighteable. We could say 70 years p.m.a. for jurisdictions where a conversation is seen as a creative work.

I've added Netherlands as jurisdiction and 70 years pma. Note that we have the sound recording itself and the monologue. I'm not sure how this works out for the US. Before 1972 sound recordings were not copyright protected https://library.osu.edu/blogs/copyright/2013/05/15/198/

Thanks, as for US copyright my approach is to mark it if I know the reason and leave it be if I do not. For example I am 99.999% sure that most very old artworks (let say pre 1800) are PD in the US, but since I do not know if they were published (whatever that means) or not I can not tell why they are PD in the US. So for time being I am not planning on marking them one way or the other. Sound recording are even more messy in the US.