Text in this article is in the public domain. The work was published without a copyright notice. No copyright mark is included on any of the aforementioned markers. This places them in the public domain because of "failure to comply with formalities."

Even if it can be proven that copyright notice was made, as a work published between 1923 through 1963 it is unclear whether the copyright was renewed or not. In the case the copyright was not renewed, then the work would be in the public domain.

For more information, see [1].

Inoysterbay (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that copyright marks do not need to be put on plaques in order for them to be copyrighted automatically. What do you mean the work is published from 1923 through 1963? There are two places where there may be copyright: one on the signs themselves (which you do not have direct access to, you have not provided photos of them) and one being the New York State webpage / database from which you copied all the texts. Consider a professional photographer's pic of the Mona Lisa painting in 2008: the painting is public domain but the 2008 photo is copyright for 75 years or something. doncram (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic copyright protection was not bestowed on works by the United States until the Copyright Act of 1976, as a result of which many artifacts published before 1977 without copyright notice are public domain. However, I don't know that we can presume that the markers were the initial point of publication for this text, which could very conceivably have been previously published with proper formalities. We can't presume that copyright was not renewed, but would have to show reasonable indication that it was not. However, doncram, if the material was public domain, the state of New York could not impose new copyright restrictions by posting them on their websites. In a derivative work, only the new creative elements can be protected. The original material remains public domain. This is why, for example, you can copyright your version of the Christian Bible, but you can't prevent other people making different versions of the same original texts. The New King James Version is copyrighted by Thomas Nelson (publisher). The Authorized King James Version is still public domain.

I just wanted to note that since this question impacts multiple articles, I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Copyright status: historical marker text. I'll invite feedback at the appropriate forums. Please feel free to contribute to that conversation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll participate there. doncram (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a copy of the note included in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Historic_sites#Reassessing_Importance_of_Historic_Markers_Within_Wikipedia, which is also relevant to the article associated with this talk page. The original note is copied in its entirety below. Inoysterbay (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Doncram asked me to include a version of the note I included on his talk page. I'd urge you to refer to my original note on his talk page User_talk:Doncram#List_of_New_York_State_Historic_Markers and also consider what I write below.

I pose to fellow editors there is a major need to revisit how we go about incorporating material on historic markers into Wikipedia. Great strides have been made to make National Register and several local historic district listings available in Wikipedia. The same rationale for doing this, to educate the public and make these sites more widely known, also applies to historic markers.

Many state marker programs had their advent in the early 20th century with the development of easy interstate travel. The placement of markers helped to educate people as they drove from place to place, providing nice brief snippets of verfied material about different historic sites. Markers like this preceded many formal systems of listing including the National Register. Just like these early travellers plying America's interstates and highways, there is a similar need for people travelling the Internet and our Information Superhighway today. Namely, to provide a brief signpost for people to easily get to or access the information they desire.

Here are some specific reasons why developing historical marker information within Wikipedia is essential:

• 1. Markers identify sites with historic significance where no evidence from the period of significance still exists, for example a building that has been lost.
• 2. Markers identify sites with historic significance where there was never a recognizable building or landmark (i.e. site of a military camp, a battle, a river crossing, etc.).
• 3. The placement of a marker indicates the will or desire of people to emphasize certain aspects of their heritage. The reason for why markers were placed may have as much interest as the original markers themselves.
• 4. Placement of a marker inveighs a heightened sence of meaning with places associated with them. This is different from National Register and other listings that to most people are invisible.
• 5. Only a small portion of documentation can be included in markers, though the marker may serve as a valuable jumping off point for expanded documentation.
• 6. Standards for interpretation of historic sites have risen in the period since many markers were erected, requiring additional explanation to help people understand the significance of these sites.
• 7. Increased sophistication on the part of audiences also requires interpretation above and beyond what each marker text provides.
• 8. When markers are taken together with states listed at the national and local level presents a fuller and more comprehensive picture of the heritage of a given area.
• 9. Markers may contribute to or indicate themes of regional, statewide, or national significance. Much like heritage trails today, several historic markers taken together might add insight to important historic events like military campaigns.
• 10. Marker programs provide a valuable index of historic sites, some that have received other historic designations, and many others that have not. Looking at sites with markers could help to influence the process of seeking historic designation.

There is a precedent for state marker programs being posted to Wikipedia - see New Hampshire Historical Markers and List of historical highway markers in Hampshire County, West Virginia. For the later there is an archived discussion which encouraged to keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hampshire County Historical Highway Markers.

To close, what I would argue is that instead of restricting further inquiry to historic markers because of a strict interpretation of notability, that a looser interpretation will open the door to exciting inquiry and expand the number of people with an interest in historic places and historic sites within Wikipedia.

What would encourage me is if we could devise a strategy for how to make all of the state historic marker programs available on Wikipedia within a fixed period of time (like the next year). Then committing to curating and developing these listing further so that eventually every marker has an article to go with it as well.

Inoysterbay (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fine essay, and I agree with some of your sentiments about notability of historic markers. But it is, I believe, entirely irrelevant to the questions of whether New York State historic plaques are themselves copyrighted and whether the NYS database of them is copyrighted. By the way the great progress on developing NRHP sites which you refer to has been enabled largely because we have been able to exploit the Federal NRIS database. However, that is clearly in the public domain, while New York State and most other state materials (perhaps excepting Minnesota) are not in the public domain. doncram (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for conceding on the notability issue. You still have not proven that the NYS marker text is not in the public domain. How I went about gathering this information, by viewing the markers indvidually and transcribing text from them or gathering the same information from a website should be irrelevant and a matter of pure speculation. It is the same information. And if that information is in the public domain as I've already argued, then this whole discussion is moot. I'd urge you to visit the Cornell Unveristy page on Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States that I referred to, and look at the section "Works First Published in the United States." Here it clearly states works "Published without a copyright notice" from "1923 through 1977" are "in the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities." This would include all of the NYS marker text. I'd politely ask you to take a look at this and then draw the same conclusion that I made before doing this work, that we are dealing with materials in the public domain. Inoysterbay (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand, tt doesn't seem helpful to suggest that you might have done something other than copy from the NYS website, or that someone else could not prove that you had. If the material is public domain, or is put into the public domain, then your doing that would be making a good contribution to wikipedia. I'll participate in further discussion about copyright issues at the discussion that Moonriddengirl opened up. It could be that the text of these plaques are in the public domain, or could be put into the public domain by New York State releasing them. And, upon further review, it seems that the NYS putting them into a database probably would not create a new copyright, as there appears to be little or no creative effort added in that process.

But there's more to be worked out in the notability area, too. It doesn't need to be addressed immediately necessarily while the copyright stuff is being worked out. But, not every historical marker is notable and deserving of a wikipedia article, in fact probably few of them are so notable individually. For many there will be never be any much more documentation available beyond the text of the markers themselves, which represent a partial memory of something long gone and almost entirely forgotten. For many there will not be reliable documentation like there is for NRHP-listed places. Having a county-level lists should be okay though, which could include the texts (if PD established) and pics of them. And some of them do relate to notable people and events which could already have wikipedia articles or get articles. So, about the Cortland and other county list-articles, i don't think they should be set up as lists of red-links. This is a lot like the Oyster Bay History Walk situation, where some component sites on that list are individually notable for separate articles, but others are not. doncram (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is tagged as a copyright violation but does not indicate what it is a copyright violation of. The url of the relevant web page needs to be added to the template at the top of the article. Without it, this copyvio discussion is moot and the tag should be removed. Truthanado (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added the URL, http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/historicmarkers/ , to the template on this page. You need to select Cortland from the dropdown menu. I had included the URL already in my report at the wp:copyvio area already but yes, sure, it should be here too. doncram (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of New York State Historic Markers in Cortland County, New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130324134704/http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/historicmarkers/ to http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/historicmarkers/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]