Files in Category:Donald Duck

Can possibly be undeleted in a few years.

• File:Albi d'oro 22 - Paperino e la pietra filosofale.jpg (1938)
• File:Sign of Donald Duck on strike at Disney film studios.jpg (1941)
• File:Topolino presenta i due fannulloni.jpg (1935)
• File:Yugoslavia - Микијеве новине - 002.jpg (1936)
• File:Yugoslavia - Микијеве новине - 003.jpg (1936)

- Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Albi d'oro 22 - Paperino e la pietra filosofale.jpg (1938)  Keep Under Legge 18 marzo 1926, n. 562; valid copyright in Italy at the time, anonymous-corporate works copyright lasts for 50 years (actually, 56 years because of the WW2 clause). Then 1938+56=1994. The file was PD in home country before URAA, so  Keep

File:Sign of Donald Duck on strike at Disney film studios.jpg (1941) (Template says: published without a notice: if true, then, it's PD).

File:Topolino presenta i due fannulloni.jpg (1935)  Keep same as Paperino, but here it falls in PD by 1992, which is three years before the previous work. PD in home country by 1996,  Keep

File:Yugoslavia - Микијеве новине - 002.jpg (1936)  Keep same reasoning, but under 1929 Yugoslav copyright law (the first one in the country). 50 years from the date of publication: PD since 1st January 1987, almost twenty years before Serbia applied for URAA.  Keep

File:Yugoslavia - Микијеве новине - 003.jpg (1936)  Keep same case as before: under 1929 Yugoslav law (and the 1978 one, the last in the country) it felt PD before the country's break up. The very Commons template says it: an anonymous work and it was published before January 1, 1941.  Keep

All the comic scans do include a link to Inducks to check the actual publication date (according to this database) and the status of anonymous author (unidentified by the people who curate the best database of Disney comics). TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

TaronjaSatsuma, thanks, that means that (apart from the sign which is uncertain) all can probably be undeleted when the character becomes public domain. (around 2030) This is assuming the drawings are original for those countries and not first published in the US. See this discussion about character copyright. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 16:48, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The drawings are all original to those countries as can be checked out at their Inducks database.

And Donald Duck is indeed Public Domain: it is in Italy, UK, Yugoslavia, and any country with a 50 year term after publication between the 1930s and the 1980s. Spirit of '43 is irrelevant to this case: that cartoon was American made, so the character is still copyrighted for 4 years.

That's the catch: those are official licensed illustrations of the characters, published by their official editor, but the only difference is these were first published (made) outside the US. And in those countries, Paolino Paperino, Paja Patak or whatever the name is already PD. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Clindberg, this is confusing me. There's character copyright that won't expire for a few more years, yet at the same time we have officially licensed foreign Donald Duck illustrations that have entered the public domain in the US as {{PD-1996}}? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Alexis, the US is not the center of the world (and I don't want sound harsh or as being a jerk, forgive me if it sounds "bad").

If your point is "derivative works of Donald Duck IN COMMONS should be locked to the original character copyright in the US, because of the servers being the US and etc... then, that's a point (you have a point).

But the answer to your question is: of course. Since 1988/1989 there has been official derivative works of early Disney characters (Snow White, Mickey, Donald) under PD in countries where copyright back then was +50 after publication. So, answering your question, yes, there has been for about 35 years, official works made in foreign countries, that fell into PD because of the laws of foreign countries, and URAA did not restore anything because those works were already in PD in the original country.

My point: Donald Duck is copyrighted IN THE US (which happens to be its original country). If an official Donald Duck (or else) work was made in Belgium, Yugoslavia, UK, Mexico in the 1930s before those countries introduced +70 terms, then that work is PD in the home country. My calculations say that Snow White, Pinocchio, Bambi and Fantasia have been PD in half of Europe for 30 years now.

How does it affect to the US, where the character is still copyrighted? well, maybe we should wait for 2030. But this has nothing do to with the drawings not being PD in their home country (the Paperino anonymous work is indeed a cover of a comic strip by a man who died in 1945). Either if we consider the comic strip to be an anonymous (it was unsigned) corporate work or an authored "personal" work, the full comic strip is PD in Italy (and in countries with the lesser term clause, which not all countries in the world have). -The cover itself is not only unsigned but, the researchers in inDucks were unable to find who the author was, so doble anonymous.

Sorry if I sounded bad at any point of the conversation, but here the question is not if there are American-made works PD overseas (in Iran, any movie officialy released before of 1995 is now PD; and they don't have copyright agreements with the US), but how does it marry with Commons/US based laws.

And thanks, dear @Alexis Jazz: for the opportunity of having this consersation. You can see I'm enjoying finding the details of each copyright term length. Maybe Clindberg can help us to check how Commons bylaws "marries" the PD works from outside US, when those are based on US-made properties. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

These are derivative works of the character, which complicates things greatly. That means there is an underlying copyright, and additional expression added on the derivative work. In most of these cases, maybe all, the additional expression has expired in the country of origin and the U.S., but the underlying copyright has not. With derivative works, you need the permission of the underlying copyright owner for distribution, even if the copyright on the additional expression has expired -- that is generally true no matter the country. While the U.S. is not the center of the universe, it is the country where Wikimedia exists and the servers are. Commons policy is that works need to be free in both the U.S. and the country of origin. The Donald Duck character was at least partially created by Walt Disney who died in 1966, so I'm not sure these are even free in Italy (70pma has not passed). It sounds like Dick Huemer (died 1979) and Art Babbitt (died 1992) animated the original version, and Dick Lundy (died 1990) developed him further, so may be the primary author of the more modern designs. I don't think the character necessarily counts as an anonymous work, though it would be a corporate work. Italy and much of the former Yugoslavia (being EU members) does not have a different copyright for corporate works, at least if the author was named initially (and usually even that is not a requirement) -- it's either anonymous or 70pma in those countries. Yugoslav works would probably be considered simultaneously published in all successor nations of Yugoslavia; copyright in each of those countries would depend on its own current laws, which (due to the EU) may involve retroactive restoration. The character copyright does not expire all at once, either -- each addition to the character (maybe a different way of drawing them) as films or comics are released basically creates incremental derivative works, which expire slowly based on each publication. But it's quite likely the character copyright is not PD in any of these countries. It's actually more likely to expire in the U.S. first. The 1935 one seems to be Donald's original appearance, that's likely fine in 2030. The rest may take a little longer. So,  Delete for me on the derivative aspect. I'd probably undelete based on the U.S. expiration of the character (which is slow and piecemeal). The former Yugoslav countries would not have a treaty with the U.S. preventing use of the rule of the shorter term; unsure about Italy but in the end the country of origin for the character copyright is the U.S. alone. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

With derivative works, you need the permission of the underlying copyright owner for distribution, even if the copyright on the additional expression has expired -- that is generally true no matter the country.

In this case, being official works (at least the Italian one was 100% official, I assume the Mickey's published in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia were also licensed) I guess it adds a layer of difficulty. Although, in the end, it's probably true the US copyright of the character prevails (still not so slow: all of the depictions except for File:Albi d'oro 22 - Paperino e la pietra filosofale.jpg are based on the original design of 1934. (The one with the current beack seems to be from 1937, en:Don Donald).

About the original Donald design, I'm pretty sure Italy and Yugolsavia had +50 after publication (56 in Italy because of the war extension) just as the UK and Belgium had prior to 1996-ish reforms, so no life of author there, the original Donald design, probably as its first publication in the country as comic-strips, has been PD since the late 80s, and in the Italian case, the 1937 design has been also PD since probably 1994 (because of the 1938 publication of official comic strips with the "newer" design on it) or perhaps 1993, if the original cartoon film Don Donald premiered in Italy the same year it did in the US.

Yugoslav works would probably be considered simultaneously published in all successor nations of Yugoslavia; copyright in each of those countries would depend on its own current laws, which (due to the EU) may involve retroactive restoration

Unless it completely expired (in this case, the original Paja Patak design) before the country splitted, which is very likely what happened if the 1929 Yugoslav law had +50 after publication for films (and even more assumptions: if the comic strips arrived to Yugoslavia before the cartoon films, then the "first Donald" in Yugoslavia would be The one published 1st March, 1936 under the Gottfredson daily strips, not the one in cartoons).

But it's quite likely the character copyright is not PD in any of these countries. It's actually more likely to expire in the U.S. first

I disagree, but still, if we must follow US copyright for Commons purposes, my disagreement does not change anything.

I'd probably undelete based on the U.S. expiration of the character (which is slow and piecemeal)

In this case is:

File:Albi d'oro 22 - Paperino e la pietra filosofale.jpg (2033 -after Don Donald)

File:Sign of Donald Duck on strike at Disney film studios.jpg (2037 -US works, clearly needs 95 years)

File:Topolino presenta i due fannulloni.jpg (1930 - after original appearence in Wise Little Hen)

File:Yugoslavia - Микијеве новине - 002.jpg (1930 - after original appearence in Wise Little Hen)

File:Yugoslavia - Микијеве новине - 003.jpg (1930 - after original appearence in Wise Little Hen)

Thanks for your insights, although I'd prefer more opinions before deleting (at least, some feedback about the proposed undelete dates). TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

In this case, being official works (at least the Italian one was 100% official, I assume the Mickey's published in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia were also licensed) I guess it adds a layer of difficulty. The official part doesn't really change anything. In that case the entity which had a license to publish that in the first place still has that right (presuming the license was perpetual), so they can continue to distribute the work same as they always have. Anyone else who does not have the underlying license cannot distribute the work, even if much of the other expression has expired. If you remove the parts containing the underlying expression, then it's fine. That is, presuming that the underlying copyright (of the character) is still valid in the country in question -- its status in the U.S. has little bearing on that. But that would seem to be a 70pma copyright in this case for the EU.

Unless it completely expired before the country splitted -- not really. Copyright today is governed solely by the laws inside the current countries. If there was a clause in those laws which did not restore expired works, or explicitly excluded works that expired before Yugoslavia split up, then sure. Otherwise, the current laws can decide to restore works (going forward) if they want to. Most countries do not, but the EU did, so most of the old laws are now completely irrelevant (unless they had even longer terms than the current laws have). Italy did restore all works to 70pma (or 70pd if anonymous) regardless if they had earlier expired, along with the rest of the EU. Not all former Yugoslav countries are EU members, so they may well remain PD in those countries (and that could qualify them as being the country of origin, actually). The U.S. is the country of origin for the character copyright though and that one is hard to get around. The situation inside Italy or Yugoslav successor nations depends on how they each treat the character copyright, basically. For the U.S., the character copyright is still valid, meaning any derivative work needs a license we don't have.

One example of this situation is the movie It's a Wonderful Life. Someone forgot to renew the film, so it lapsed into the public domain 28 years after it was published. As a result, it became cheap filler for many TV stations, and a previously obscure film then became a big favorite over the years. Then someone else remembered while the film was public domain, the booklet it was based on had been renewed, meaning only people with a license from the booklet's copyright owner could distribute the film, and as such were able to start charging royalties again. (The soundtrack had also been renewed.). The booklet in question was published in 1943, so that company will be able to collect royalties on the move until 2039. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Copyright today is governed solely by the laws inside the current countries. If there was a clause in those laws which did not restore expired works, or explicitly excluded works that expired before Yugoslavia split up, then sure. Otherwise, the current laws can decide to restore works (going forward) if they want to. Most countries do not, but the EU did, so most of the old laws are now completely irrelevant (unless they had even longer terms than the current laws have).

Now this is completely news for me. Where can I learn more about the restoration of expired copyrights? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

It happened due to the Copyright Duration Directive. The various EU countries changed their laws to conform to that at various times in the mid-1990s. Some countries were already pretty much conformant, but many had to increase their terms, and also restore any work protected in at least one member state on July 1, 1995 (which as far as we have been able to tell, basically means all works). Countries which joined the EU later had to do something similar, to protect any work from an EU country at least as long as those terms (which can involve restoring copyright to works which had expired in that country). They can still use the rule of the shorter term for non-EU countries. (For the U.S. specifically, many countries had a direct treaty with the U.S. to respect each others' copyrights dating from the late 1800s or early 1900s; these may still be in effect. In Germany a court case ruled that it was there, such that Germany must protect U.S. works for the full 70pma there even if expired in the U.S.). Some countries did not implement the directive until after the URAA date, so in those countries the old laws may still matter to determine URAA restoration (where the US was forced to restore foreign copyrights due to the Berne Convention). Italy is one of those, and of course any country which joined the EU later on would also have done that after the URAA date. The UK implemented the directive on the URAA date itself (January 1, 1996) which had the effect of restoring a bunch of their works in both the UK and the US on the same day -- many of their photographs had previously been 50 years from creation, and they changed to 70pma on that day, and so in the US got restored to the full 95 years from publication as well. France's implementation came in 1997; you can see that law here -- it's usually in the "transitional provisions" at the end where they get into the details of revived rights. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the text, Clindberg. With this law it seems clear Donald Duck itself, as a character, is not PD in Europe, even if some works did fall into PD under older laws.

Now, asking the AI about this issue, it pointed me a new nuance: it talks about the Directive 93/98/EEC (which I guess it's the same text you linked, because the AI quoted something very close to Title III, Art 16. III- copyright restored unless PD in all the members.

Now the nuance: Montis v. Goossens (Case C-169/15) states copyright can't be restored if PD in every EU state.

• Albi d'Oro 22 was only published in Italy (and only reissued in 2024, far after original copyright expired)
• Микијеве новине - 002.jpg and 3 were only published in Yugoslavia (thus, before 1991)
• And File:Topolino presenta i due fannulloni.jpg is trickier but is the same case: only published in Italy prior to 1996 (so, reissues outside of Italy happen when the original Italian copyright was expired, before harmonization and before URAA).

My new point: If a work was published in a single European country, and remain unpublished in any other European country until it fell into PD, then... the copyright is expired in the whole of the EU, isn't it? Copyright is territorial, just because a work was published in Italy does not automatically mean it was protected elsewhere.

In order to be protected outside of Italy, it would need either to be registered elsewhere, or published in 30-days terms or at least to be published in a different country before the original copyright term expired. And this is not the case for these files which were only published (therefore protected for copyright) in one single country. Those files neved had any copyright in any country outside of Italy (and Yugoslavia), so no copyright to "expire" elsewhere. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Couple of notes -- publication doesn't change much under the Berne Convention -- unpublished works are protected just as much as published ones. It does set the country of origin, but that mainly matters when using the rule of the shorter term, which EU countries do not do inside the EU. If work *was* PD in all EU countries as of July 1995, correct, it was not restored -- but we have not identified any such work to exist that was not already beyond the new EU norms of 70pma. The Montis vs. Goosens case was a technicality -- the parties threw away that particular argument with an offhand answer, even though it was likely the winning argument, as they had brought the case on other, far more dubious grounds. That was discussed at length at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Austria-1932. There is no registration etc. necessary under the Berne Convention; works are automatically protected from creation, unless first published in a non-Berne country, of which there are very few today. There really isn't a way around the minimum EU copyright terms, other than simple photos and things that may not qualify as "works". Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

OK. That means those (unsigned anonymous) works are PD in Europe by 70 years after publication (1938+70 = 1st January 2009 the lastest).

As I assume under US law those were URAA restored, then it's 95 years after publication.

undelete in 2034 and undelete in 2031.

About the Yugoslav files I'm unsure, because they fell PD by 1987, so before any of the successor states joined Berne or URAA happened to them, so I'd say they are acceptable once the original Donald Duck design falls into PD. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

More research about Donald: probably, its first canon/American appearance with the current beak (as seen in Don Donald and the Albi d'Oro 22) is from 1936, in either this illustration, this comic strip (Al Taliaferro) or here (also this anonymous work) and more clearly, any late-year design

This means 1936+95+1= 2032 by that year the modern Donald Duck design falls into PD. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
TaronjaSatsuma, according to Wikipedia Don Donald was released very early in 1937. Back in 2018 I reached the same 1936 conclusion based on his appearance in Donald and Pluto. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:54, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok. "Donald and Pluto" was outside my radar, so I assumed Don Donald was the first one with the 1936 design. I guess I have now an excuse to come back to the classic filmography. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2026 (UTC)