Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Flickr-no known copyright restrictions
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Template:Flickr-no known copyright restrictions
How can Library of Congress images which come directly from their webpage not be automatically PD (Template:PD-LOC has been deprecated, requiering a specific PD motivation for each image). But when the same image comes from Flickr it's automatically PD by magic. Why is an image such as this automatically PD because it comes via Flickr when the image page on the Smithsonian webpage says nothing about a license and the smithsonian copyright page mumbles about images may be protected by copyright and Commercial use is restricted. I'd say that the best thing is to create templates similar to {{LOC-image}} for the different instituetes connected to Flickr Commons, but still require a specific motivated license for each image. /Lokal_Profil 13:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, that was fast :) I created this template for the use within Flinfo, since people didn't want me to use Template:PD-because. LoC and Lighthouse images still get their license tags from Flinfo (and Magnus' upload bot), only Smithsonian and Brooklyn museum are automatically tagged with this one. We're the problem in deleting specific images instead of the whole template? When some people upload copyvios to flickr and tag them as cc-by-sa, we don't delete that template either. Also: It's not PD, it's no known copyright restrictions. --Flominator (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete Neutral
Keep Sadly, for now, the default Smithsonian release, as linked from each Flickr image page, is {{Noncommercial}} (speedy!). It conflicts starkly (in my mind) with the "NO KNOWN COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS" statement at Flickr. They know better and will probably change their web page soon.
- So, until then, assume the worst and tag on a case-by-case basis per Profil's nomination.
- This is sad, firstly because the Flickr disclaimer is similar in spirit to Wikimedia's own disclaimers, and secondly because Smithsonian librarians have probably put in a lot of research to catalog pictures as 'No known copyright restrictions', and they (as individual information scientists, not as a body corporate) probably want the world to have unrestricted use of the archive they have sweated over building.
- --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Changed vote to keep, based on the discussion below, and the changes by Flominator. Since uploaders will be encouraged by this template to use a more specific PD rationale, I think it will be very useful, and I don't foresee a large risk of harm. --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment Something like "This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information." (copypaste LoC) should be added, and the coplyleftsymbol be changed into something else. The problem here is that the template gives the impression of being an allowed Commons copyright tag, which it - as far as I can see - isn't. Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The Smithsonian's webpage indicates the possibility of copyright applying, the others are explicit that no copyright is known to apply. Possibly a tag which requires the user to specify the institution and provide a further tag for Smithsonian items is required? Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Since this template is currently in Category:License tags it very much gives the impression of being a license tag. I have nothing against this tag if it also requires a proper copyright tag (and possibly a LOC-image or similar). But experience has shown me that this will (just as for {{insignia}} and {{Coat of Arms}}) result in a lot of images tagged only with non-copyright tags. Also @ Mostlyharmless: I agree that the Smithsonian is more problematic then the others but even for the others the above tag wouldn't be enough, thats why we deprecated {{PD-LOC}} to start with. /Lokal_Profil 12:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom's logic. Usually the original tif files available from the government sites are much higher resolution, we should be converting and using those rather than taking copies from flickr anyways. --Gmaxwell (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- CommentThis is a bit more complicated than I first thought. I can definitely appreciate how much a specific tag would help for automated uploads from the Flickr commons... either we have one, or force the use of PD-because (making them harder to identify), or disallow uploads from Flickr Commons collections we can't map to another tag, even though they are virtually certain to be OK. The first two reasons given on the template though are duplicates of other tags, which would be preferable to this one (PD-LOC was deprecated for the same reason). Some of these Smithsonian images seem to be non-U.S. works; while they may be PD in the U.S. (which is all that is needed to include them on Flickr under that license) they may not be in their country of origin -- that is the difficulty with allowing them on commons unconditionally. The third and fourth reasons though are definitely legitimate for a separate tag... the question is, which ones do those reasons apply to? As for the statement on the smithsonian website, I think that is irrelevant for the Flickr Commons images; the Flickr statement means they consider the image to have no restrictions (which would mean no commercial restrictions too). The Smithsonian in the recent past has made dubious claims of copyright and other rights (see here for an article about it, and here is one example where they are claiming copyright on the digitization of an 1855 photo), so the linked copyright page may just be in line with that. If the Smithsonian chooses to put those images on Flickr with that license statement, I think Commons can accept them (with the exception of foreign works where the copyright has not expired in the country of origin; that is probably rare but looks to be possible in the Smithsonian submissions). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Question: If we make this one a tag that still requires another license tag and people upload with Magnus' bot - how can we contact them and notify them that there image might be deleted? --Flominator (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's true, but the same thing applies to the images if they are uploaded using a badly formulated PD-Because or similar. One of the reasons I'm not a big fan of anonymous uploding. Might be easier hen to not allow them via the bot but instead have a notice which explains how to upload them (with all necessary templates and source info) manually. it can even mention that going for the original source might give better images (as Gmaxwell mentioned). /Lokal_Profil 12:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Maybe this template has been used in inappropriate conditions. However, there could be conditions wher eit is appropriate.--Londoneye (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If the result is keep, I would request 2 changes:
- Remove the PD-icon.svg image (as, sadly, we can't assume from the source that it is PD)
- Move from Category:License tags to Category:Marker templates
- --InfantGorilla (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I would disagree -- the images are almost certain to be PD. The one exception is foreign works which are PD in the US, and thus fine to put on Flickr under those conditions, but not in their country of origin, meaning they are not OK for commons. Those are probably rare, but the Smithsonian may have some of those. I'm just undecided if there may be enough of those to justify not using the tag, which seems otherwise valid. The other reason is that the first two reasons would be (by far) the two most common reasons, and are represented in other tags. That is probably not enough reason to remove it though, since it can also serve as a source tag and is useful for automated uploads. Maybe we could keep it, but use the Image:PDmaybe-icon.svg icon, and note the possibility of foreign works still being copyrighted (and in those cases, the image should be deleted). I'm still on the fence though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Carl, you make a good case, I am withdrawing my Delete vote. Does the US federal government blanket PD apply to the Smithsonian, as it is kind of a public corporation for which the federal government has some governance responsibility? If not, then we can't yet accept images created by their own curators or staff photographers on their current license, notwithstanding a Flickr upload. (Foreign works PD in the US should be copied from Commons to English Wikipedia if they are needed there and come up for deletion here.) --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you both for this excellent suggestion. --Flominator (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Carl, you make a good case, I am withdrawing my Delete vote. Does the US federal government blanket PD apply to the Smithsonian, as it is kind of a public corporation for which the federal government has some governance responsibility? If not, then we can't yet accept images created by their own curators or staff photographers on their current license, notwithstanding a Flickr upload. (Foreign works PD in the US should be copied from Commons to English Wikipedia if they are needed there and come up for deletion here.) --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The PD-USGov question is kinda interesting. Most Smithsonian employees are federal employees, so it really should apply most of the time. They do have some employees paid through their trust fund though, and they would own copyright in works created by those employees (see here (PDF) for a statement by a Smithsonian counsel on the matter). If the Smithsonian will not identify which is which, it can make things difficult. The Flickr statement works in either situation, but not for images on the Smithsonian's website. Also see here for a bit more of a discussion... that organization later requested that the Smithsonian put images online at Flickr, so that appears to be the beginning of the process which has resulted in them joining the Flickr Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment This posting at commons-l may also be of interest to all of you. --Flominator (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- We may need to be careful about terms like "public domain"... when we use it, we mean more in the "lack of copyright protection" sense only (as noted in a footnote of Commons:Licensing). For many others, that term also connotes the lack of trademark or other restrictions. We are mainly concerned about copyright here, so if there are "No known copyright restrictions" that really should be enough for us. Obviously personality rights may still exist in the photographs, which can restrict certain commercial usage, and trademarks may still exist too. The Smithsonian can't give away any rights it did not have in the first place, and it would not generally own those types of rights. "Commercial use" in a copyright context I think generally means using it to make money, while in trademark or other contexts has different, more limited meanings. If the Smithsonian is really trying to limit usages through an avenue other than copyright, that would be rather odd and it would be interesting to know the details, but I think that if they are saying there are no copyright restrictions, then that is OK. For the portrait collection, it doesn't sound as though the Smithsonian would own any copyrights in the first place, so those would have to have entered the public domain by means of PD-US, PD-US_not_renewed, Anonymous-EU, etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- As I read it it's basically reiterating what has been mentioned earlier in this deletion request (and when PD-LOC got deprecated). Basically that there is no blanket license for the images but rather each one has to be analised on a case by case basis. That's why Flickr uses the "no known copyright restrictions" rather then PD. Since Commons requires a specific motivation for why something is PD (which is why {{PD}} is deprecated) rather then "it's probably PD" I'd say that images with "Flickr-no known copyright restrictions" should not be automatically transferred from Flickr (i.e. our flickr upload bot should consider it a bad license). That doesn't mean that the images won't get to Commons, it just means that when they get here we are more sure that they are indeed as free as we promise our the downstream users that they are. Don't know how the bot works but if it gives error messages for the cc-nc images on commons then there could be a similar error message with information on how to go about investigating if the image is indeed free. For the specific case of the Smithsonian a list of the federally employed photographers and photographers dead since more then 70 years (a Commons project maybe) could make the process easier and more streamlined. /Lokal_Profil 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not exactly... PD-LOC was deprecated because the Library of Congress has an immense amount of copyrighted material, and it also has a lot of foreign material -- a much higher percentage of "PD in the U.S. only". The likelihood of mistaken use (or outright abuse) was much, much higher. The images on Flickr Commons are pretty much all PD, given one of the four criteria. The last two criteria are absolutely legitimate for their own tag, as well. Obviously, it is preferable to have a specific tag, but in this case I am leaning towards thinking that is not a good enough reason to disallow automatic uploads using it. They are virtually certain to be OK, so to prevent automated uploads just because we can't decide which flavor of PD to use seems a bit off-kilter to me. I don't really see the potential for abuse of this tag; if it is on Flickr Commons the chances we can't host it here are really small. It would probably be a good idea for this tag to take an argument (an underlying PD tag, or a value specifying reason #3 or #4), and if present use the regular PD icon, and if not present use the PDmaybe icon, indicating it hasn't been completely verified. The latter ones could be put into a category for easier processing, or identification if it turns out there are many more problems than we thought. PD-LOC created lots more problems than it solved (there were tons of misuses of people assuming anything on loc.gov was fair game), but I don't see the same situation here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Replying to Lokal:
- (1) We don't promise our downstream users anything. General disclaimer says exactly the opposite. I guess you didn't intend me to take your passing mention of a promise literally :)
- (2) I don't see the benefit of bot uploads: we only need a copy on Commons if a Wikimedia project needs an image hosted. Other users can get them direct from Flickr. Shouldn't we encourage uploads only when needed, with tools like Commonist and the upload wizard?
- (3) "Commons requires a specific motivation for why something is PD" I am leaning the same direction as Carl: For practical purposes, "SI says it is PD" is, to me, a more reliable motivation than, "JoCommonsUser says the author died more than 100 years ago."
- --InfantGorilla (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- One comment on uploads -- they are not really "automatic" uploads; a commons user chooses to upload the specific image from Flickr. The tools just automate the process of verifying the license, making sure to get the highest-quality version, adding all the source information as completely and accurately as possible, and performing the actual upload. The tools speed up the process and minimize mistakes. We already allow this for all cc-by and cc-by-sa images on Flickr; to disallow Flickr Commons images through the same route seems a bit silly -- and if allowed, we need a license tag. Given how often that Flickr users upload images found on the web and license them randomly, the cc-by images are much more likely to be problems than these. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- As I read it it's basically reiterating what has been mentioned earlier in this deletion request (and when PD-LOC got deprecated). Basically that there is no blanket license for the images but rather each one has to be analised on a case by case basis. That's why Flickr uses the "no known copyright restrictions" rather then PD. Since Commons requires a specific motivation for why something is PD (which is why {{PD}} is deprecated) rather then "it's probably PD" I'd say that images with "Flickr-no known copyright restrictions" should not be automatically transferred from Flickr (i.e. our flickr upload bot should consider it a bad license). That doesn't mean that the images won't get to Commons, it just means that when they get here we are more sure that they are indeed as free as we promise our the downstream users that they are. Don't know how the bot works but if it gives error messages for the cc-nc images on commons then there could be a similar error message with information on how to go about investigating if the image is indeed free. For the specific case of the Smithsonian a list of the federally employed photographers and photographers dead since more then 70 years (a Commons project maybe) could make the process easier and more streamlined. /Lokal_Profil 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- We may need to be careful about terms like "public domain"... when we use it, we mean more in the "lack of copyright protection" sense only (as noted in a footnote of Commons:Licensing). For many others, that term also connotes the lack of trademark or other restrictions. We are mainly concerned about copyright here, so if there are "No known copyright restrictions" that really should be enough for us. Obviously personality rights may still exist in the photographs, which can restrict certain commercial usage, and trademarks may still exist too. The Smithsonian can't give away any rights it did not have in the first place, and it would not generally own those types of rights. "Commercial use" in a copyright context I think generally means using it to make money, while in trademark or other contexts has different, more limited meanings. If the Smithsonian is really trying to limit usages through an avenue other than copyright, that would be rather odd and it would be interesting to know the details, but I think that if they are saying there are no copyright restrictions, then that is OK. For the portrait collection, it doesn't sound as though the Smithsonian would own any copyrights in the first place, so those would have to have entered the public domain by means of PD-US, PD-US_not_renewed, Anonymous-EU, etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment if we keep (I am still on the fence), a coding expert should code up a parameter to name the source at Flickr Commons (SI, LOC ...), and link directly to that organization's disclaimer, as Flickr staff requested in the email Flominator linked. --InfantGorilla (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Already on my todo-list --Flominator (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Done. Flinfo now puts the link to the disclaimer at the permission field. --Flominator (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think I now vote for Keep, but with changes -- the tag should take a parameter of a more specific license, and if specified, this tag becomes more of a source tag pointing to the extra relevant information on FlickrCommons and source sites, and just including the better license inside. If no license tag parameter is specified, then use the current text with PDmaybe-icon.svg, with an additional message to please add a more specific copyright tag as a parameter if it can be determined. We could even add a separate "source" parameter which would be one of the four known FlickrCommons sources, and the tag could use conditional statements to show the additional links pertinent to that source -- that way the uploading tools just have to add the right "source" parameter to this tag, and we can just update the template if the links change. How easy is it to figure out (automatically via the tools) which organization donated the image to Flickr Commons? Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Flinfo can find out who uploaded the picture and even use uploader-specific parameter. Would be no problem. --Flominator (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Delete or repurpose. The LoC includes many images that are public domain in the US but NOT IN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN. Unless the actual reason the image is PD is known Commons should not accept the images (unless they are just so old copyright would be impossible). -Nard the Bard 21:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thus far, the images the LoC have put on Flickr do not fall into your scenario (the country of origin is the U.S.). If we find specific images which are a problem in the future, we can handle those individually, like always. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to be more reverent of copyright than LoC or the other institutions, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, as some LOC images are not free in the country of origin or do not have enough information on their copyright status to keep them here. Many LOC images are not suitable for Commons, they get deleted all the time. Why should we accept a template that allows all LOC images for no reason? This looks like Template:PD. Just trusting the user of the template or the LOC is not enough. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Um... the LoC is only putting actual PD works onto Flickr, not random stuff from their entire catalog which may still be under copyright. This template is only for the images they are putting onto Flickr with this special license, which they carefully vet -- it is not to be used for files which come from loc.gov itself. You are correct in that point; {{PD-LOC}} was deprecated long ago. This is very very different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Anyway, the LOC is not as restrictive about licensing as we are. Thus I oppose any template that allows files from LOC by default, without actually checking the licensing conditions. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- That is true -- but that is not what this tag is for. This is only for the images they put up on Flickr, and also have the "no known copyright restrictions" tag there. Thus far they are putting up images from two collections, and being very careful about it -- the FSA/OWI collection (US Government agency, and thus PD-USGov-FSA), and the George Grantham Bain collection (and thus {{PD-Bain}}), both of which are fine. If the LoC says "no known copyright restrictions", that is almost always good enough for us (since they actually are pretty restrictive about which images they place that tag on) -- the only possible difference coming on foreign material, and even that is really rare. We allow images coming from Flickr with cc-by-sa tags by default, which have nowhere near the same level of vetting as the "no known copyright restrictions" images -- it seems fairly ridiculous to not allow these by default as well. The chances of an unacceptable image here are far lower than just about any other avenue through which we receive images. I agree about images directly from loc.gov -- a great many are there still under copyright, and thus do not have the "no known copyright restrictions" tag there. But this tag is only for the images that the LoC has cross-uploaded to Flickr. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I still disagree with using this tag. Even if the LOC is very carefully about what the upload to Flickr, I see a potential problem in backtracking. If these are taken from Flickr, then Flickr will be the source and PD-reason will be "because it's on the Commons on Flickr". I think images should still have their original source, e.g. the George Bantham Bain collection, and then be tagged with the actual tag (PD-Bain or whatever applies). This will also avoid problems with differing project laws. Many images on Commons can e.g. not be used on de-wp for licensing reasons. The only sure way to tell whether the image is allowed or not allowed is the tag on Commons. If we put images, that are PD in the US for different reasons together and place a single tag on them, this does not say why the image is considered to be in the Public Domain. All other PD templates we have are related to the original source of the image, and not to a redistributor who is claiming, that the copyright has expired. If it indeed has expired, there is a reason for this (and it is NOT the LOC placing the image on Flickr), which should be indicated on the image description page. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- The Bain collection is also just a collection, and Bain was just a redistributer. There is no difference. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- The difference is, that the Bain collection likely owned the copyright on the images it collected. As LOC bought the images and released them without any restrictions, these can be deemed free. Unfortunately, the LOC does not have the copyright on most images on its page, thus cannot release them. So we have on the one hand a collection which is now released to the public domain and on the other hand a collection which collects images which might be public domain. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- The Bain collection is also just a collection, and Bain was just a redistributer. There is no difference. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I still disagree with using this tag. Even if the LOC is very carefully about what the upload to Flickr, I see a potential problem in backtracking. If these are taken from Flickr, then Flickr will be the source and PD-reason will be "because it's on the Commons on Flickr". I think images should still have their original source, e.g. the George Bantham Bain collection, and then be tagged with the actual tag (PD-Bain or whatever applies). This will also avoid problems with differing project laws. Many images on Commons can e.g. not be used on de-wp for licensing reasons. The only sure way to tell whether the image is allowed or not allowed is the tag on Commons. If we put images, that are PD in the US for different reasons together and place a single tag on them, this does not say why the image is considered to be in the Public Domain. All other PD templates we have are related to the original source of the image, and not to a redistributor who is claiming, that the copyright has expired. If it indeed has expired, there is a reason for this (and it is NOT the LOC placing the image on Flickr), which should be indicated on the image description page. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- That is true -- but that is not what this tag is for. This is only for the images they put up on Flickr, and also have the "no known copyright restrictions" tag there. Thus far they are putting up images from two collections, and being very careful about it -- the FSA/OWI collection (US Government agency, and thus PD-USGov-FSA), and the George Grantham Bain collection (and thus {{PD-Bain}}), both of which are fine. If the LoC says "no known copyright restrictions", that is almost always good enough for us (since they actually are pretty restrictive about which images they place that tag on) -- the only possible difference coming on foreign material, and even that is really rare. We allow images coming from Flickr with cc-by-sa tags by default, which have nowhere near the same level of vetting as the "no known copyright restrictions" images -- it seems fairly ridiculous to not allow these by default as well. The chances of an unacceptable image here are far lower than just about any other avenue through which we receive images. I agree about images directly from loc.gov -- a great many are there still under copyright, and thus do not have the "no known copyright restrictions" tag there. But this tag is only for the images that the LoC has cross-uploaded to Flickr. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Anyway, the LOC is not as restrictive about licensing as we are. Thus I oppose any template that allows files from LOC by default, without actually checking the licensing conditions. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- The Bain collection is mostly their negatives -- i.e. photos that their employees took, and where they owned the copyright. The collection description says Available online are 39,744 glass negatives and a selection of about 1,600 photographic prints for which copy negatives exist. The Library of Congress is more careful about copyright than almost any other body I am aware of -- which makes some sense, as the U.S. Copyright Office is part of the Library of Congress. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If you look at reasons #3 and #4, those are absolutely valid for their own license tag. As you say, reasons #1 and #2 imply that there should be another tag in those situations, since the details can be meaningful in other countries. The purpose of this tag is to allow the half-automated Flickr tools get these images through the Flickr API like any other CC-BY[-SA] images on Flickr, otherwise they would have to be done manually. If you note above, I suggested adding a "license" parameter, which would be either a value indicating that #3 or #4 apply, or the name of a real license tag. If not supplied, then put them in an most-likely-OK-but-not-completely-verified category (with the PD-maybe icon), and asking users to add the correct parameter if they can. It is kind of a weird situation to be sure. But because these images are virtually certain to be allowable here -- much better certainty than virtually any other source we have -- we need to find some solution to allow the Flickr tools to work on them. The question is, what is the best way? Simply disallowing the tag doesn't solve the first problem, which is more damaging then allowing the tag as-is in my opinion, but there may well be a solution which can still satisfy the Flickr tools (maybe with a bit more work on their end) while still giving more information than it does at present (to better satisfy the needs in other countries). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think a tag saying This is from the Commons on Flickr and thus probably PD. Please review the description and insert a correct licensing tag would be best. However, I still object to this way too generic tag for the reasons I already mentioned (no sanity check by humans, no specific licensing even if the image is unfree in some countries). Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Do you really want to create another maintenance category? --Flominator (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd rather not have a template for images from the Commons on Flickr, but some people obviously do. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is sanity checked by two humans - the LOC librarian and the uploader. As a third check, the new page patrol will see it. Rather than a 4th check, I think that time spent by Commons rights volunteers will catch more violations elsewhere. If it is unfree in some countries (which may occur for some pre-1923 images), then that is the time for a deletion request. At the same time, the image is in the same position as any other usage that doesn't meet Commons policy or non-US laws: Commons provides no warranties, and it is up to the downloader to check if it is lawful in their country, as Commons only provides hosting for Wikimedia projects with the common carrier exemption. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Uploaders often don't do sanity checks when transferring images from Flickr or any other easy-to-import source, e.g. Wikipediae. The sanity check of the LOC librarian alone is not enough, as I already pointed out, LOC images are deleted quite frequently, thus the LOC having checked the image is not a valid reason for a PD claim on Commons. Uploaders should research the copyright information to the image (by reading the description on LOC pages or any other means) and then decide, whether the image is OK for Commons or not. Allowing all images from a certain source is known to cause problems (see e.g. Flickr imports). This is one thing for content that was published by the author on some media site as there is no other original source and the reason for the license claim is because the author put it on Flickr with this license. However, the situation with the files of the LOC is quite different: These are not created by the LOC and the copyright of (most of) the images is not owned by the LOC. Thus the LOC cannot publish the images effectively releasing them into the Public Domain (there are some exemptions, see e.g. Bain). So the reason for these images being PD is not the LOC put it on Flickr, but The author died 70 years ago or This was published before 1923 etc.. I do realize, that about 90% of the images the LOC puts on Flickr can be uploaded to Commons without any problems, but I oppose any template which assumes that an image is PD just because it comes from a certain source (which is not the creator) without checking the license and providing information about the actual reason, why the image is PD. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- LOC images marked "no known copyright restrictions" shouldn't be deleted very often. They have tons on loc.gov which don't have that, obviously, but those aren't on Flickr -- I would think 99.99% (or more) of the LOC's Flickr Commons images are OK. The Flickr Commons definitely looks like all images there are vetted for copyright, which is much better than any other source. There are many more organizations now, often foreign, which could complicate things certainly (they may not be as careful as the LoC, or make more liberal use of things like EU-Anonymous, but at least they have some provenance information when they do that). There are copyright problems with any source of images we have (including direct user uploads); this is one of the only ones which actually have had their copyright looked at pretty carefully and it seems really silly to disallow the uploads based on not knowing which flavor of PD they are, while allowing uploads from other less-vetted sources. Reasons #3 or #4 are primarily for the other institutions on Flickr Commons; LoC would be either PD-USGov-FSA or PD-Bain as mentioned (I don't think they are putting other collections up there right now). Can you find a single LoC image on Flickr Commons which is not PD? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am not going to search the entire Commons on Flickr now and check the PD status of every image. I mentioned the reasons for my opposing this template several times already: Everything on the Commons on Flickr can and should be tagged with an appropriate licensing tag on Commons, saying why this is PD. Once more, This is on the Flickr Commons is _not_ a valid PD reason. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is much better to rely on the authority of the LoC professionals who transfer images to FlickR than having amateurs conduct original research into copyright statuses. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't object to citing the LoC (on Flickr) as a source and using the information provided by the LoC regarding the image. I am just saying, that users should evaluate what info the LoC gives and then decide which copyright tag to use. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is much better to rely on the authority of the LoC professionals who transfer images to FlickR than having amateurs conduct original research into copyright statuses. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am not going to search the entire Commons on Flickr now and check the PD status of every image. I mentioned the reasons for my opposing this template several times already: Everything on the Commons on Flickr can and should be tagged with an appropriate licensing tag on Commons, saying why this is PD. Once more, This is on the Flickr Commons is _not_ a valid PD reason. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- LOC images marked "no known copyright restrictions" shouldn't be deleted very often. They have tons on loc.gov which don't have that, obviously, but those aren't on Flickr -- I would think 99.99% (or more) of the LOC's Flickr Commons images are OK. The Flickr Commons definitely looks like all images there are vetted for copyright, which is much better than any other source. There are many more organizations now, often foreign, which could complicate things certainly (they may not be as careful as the LoC, or make more liberal use of things like EU-Anonymous, but at least they have some provenance information when they do that). There are copyright problems with any source of images we have (including direct user uploads); this is one of the only ones which actually have had their copyright looked at pretty carefully and it seems really silly to disallow the uploads based on not knowing which flavor of PD they are, while allowing uploads from other less-vetted sources. Reasons #3 or #4 are primarily for the other institutions on Flickr Commons; LoC would be either PD-USGov-FSA or PD-Bain as mentioned (I don't think they are putting other collections up there right now). Can you find a single LoC image on Flickr Commons which is not PD? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Uploaders often don't do sanity checks when transferring images from Flickr or any other easy-to-import source, e.g. Wikipediae. The sanity check of the LOC librarian alone is not enough, as I already pointed out, LOC images are deleted quite frequently, thus the LOC having checked the image is not a valid reason for a PD claim on Commons. Uploaders should research the copyright information to the image (by reading the description on LOC pages or any other means) and then decide, whether the image is OK for Commons or not. Allowing all images from a certain source is known to cause problems (see e.g. Flickr imports). This is one thing for content that was published by the author on some media site as there is no other original source and the reason for the license claim is because the author put it on Flickr with this license. However, the situation with the files of the LOC is quite different: These are not created by the LOC and the copyright of (most of) the images is not owned by the LOC. Thus the LOC cannot publish the images effectively releasing them into the Public Domain (there are some exemptions, see e.g. Bain). So the reason for these images being PD is not the LOC put it on Flickr, but The author died 70 years ago or This was published before 1923 etc.. I do realize, that about 90% of the images the LOC puts on Flickr can be uploaded to Commons without any problems, but I oppose any template which assumes that an image is PD just because it comes from a certain source (which is not the creator) without checking the license and providing information about the actual reason, why the image is PD. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is sanity checked by two humans - the LOC librarian and the uploader. As a third check, the new page patrol will see it. Rather than a 4th check, I think that time spent by Commons rights volunteers will catch more violations elsewhere. If it is unfree in some countries (which may occur for some pre-1923 images), then that is the time for a deletion request. At the same time, the image is in the same position as any other usage that doesn't meet Commons policy or non-US laws: Commons provides no warranties, and it is up to the downloader to check if it is lawful in their country, as Commons only provides hosting for Wikimedia projects with the common carrier exemption. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd rather not have a template for images from the Commons on Flickr, but some people obviously do. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Do you really want to create another maintenance category? --Flominator (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think a tag saying This is from the Commons on Flickr and thus probably PD. Please review the description and insert a correct licensing tag would be best. However, I still object to this way too generic tag for the reasons I already mentioned (no sanity check by humans, no specific licensing even if the image is unfree in some countries). Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
ChrisiPK, your comments raise legitimate concerns. Would Carl L's suggestion of a "license" parameter make the template more acceptable to you? --InfantGorilla (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. I am not opposing this template as a source template (like {{LOC-image}}), but as a reason to assume that something is PD. We have a sufficient range of PD templates (with good PD reasons), and these should also be used on the LOC images. I could live with something similar to {{Free screenshot}}. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I was thinking more an innocent until proved guilty, since there will be no legal reason for any of these images to be deleted, only a policy one. In other words, the uploader would be expected to fill out the 'license=' parameter, but they may not (perhaps because the Flickr user relied on data not available to the Wikimedia user). If 'license=' remains blank, instead of rejecting the image or categorizing it for deletion, it goes into a special maintenance category Media from Flickr Commons without full copyright status. Can we talk you into that? --InfantGorilla (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think he said above that would be a reasonable compromise. Ideally we have a better reason specified as a parameter, but it is virtually impossible for upload bots to figure those out (though they could add the sourcing information of which organization put the image up). I suspect there will be a lot of custom code needed to deal with this particular Flickr license... Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- As mentioned above I now have modified Flinfo in order to put the link to the rights statement in the permission field. I'd also like to mention that most of the LoC pictures don't get this template, but {{PD-USGov-FSA}} or {{PD-Bain}} instead. I can also change Flinfo in ordner to write the source as a parameter when inserting this template. But this template should be changed before. --Flominator (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- If a transfer bot is able to use the right templates for most of the images, I don't see a need for another one. As the licensing with the other images is obviously complicated, those should be reviewed by people with copyright knowledge anyway. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Images that were transferred to Flickr Commons were reviewed by professionals with copyright competence. I do not see the need for amateurs like ChrisiPK to have another look at it. The restrictive and paranoid attitude on commons goes against the bold line of the Wikimedia Foundation, for example in their asserting {{PD-Art}} also for photographs that European museums claim copyright of. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is something completely different. The WMF assumes that non-creative reproductions of Public Domain originals are also in the PD, as only a creative work can be copyrighted. On this issue, we are talking about whether the original image is in the PD and then applying the PD-Art guideline anyway. You mustn't confuse making a decision based on an internationally established concept of copyright with being bold and assuming an image is PD just because a certain site hosts it. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Images that were transferred to Flickr Commons were reviewed by professionals with copyright competence. I do not see the need for amateurs like ChrisiPK to have another look at it. The restrictive and paranoid attitude on commons goes against the bold line of the Wikimedia Foundation, for example in their asserting {{PD-Art}} also for photographs that European museums claim copyright of. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- If a transfer bot is able to use the right templates for most of the images, I don't see a need for another one. As the licensing with the other images is obviously complicated, those should be reviewed by people with copyright knowledge anyway. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- As mentioned above I now have modified Flinfo in order to put the link to the rights statement in the permission field. I'd also like to mention that most of the LoC pictures don't get this template, but {{PD-USGov-FSA}} or {{PD-Bain}} instead. I can also change Flinfo in ordner to write the source as a parameter when inserting this template. But this template should be changed before. --Flominator (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think he said above that would be a reasonable compromise. Ideally we have a better reason specified as a parameter, but it is virtually impossible for upload bots to figure those out (though they could add the sourcing information of which organization put the image up). I suspect there will be a lot of custom code needed to deal with this particular Flickr license... Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I was thinking more an innocent until proved guilty, since there will be no legal reason for any of these images to be deleted, only a policy one. In other words, the uploader would be expected to fill out the 'license=' parameter, but they may not (perhaps because the Flickr user relied on data not available to the Wikimedia user). If 'license=' remains blank, instead of rejecting the image or categorizing it for deletion, it goes into a special maintenance category Media from Flickr Commons without full copyright status. Can we talk you into that? --InfantGorilla (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - if there are a reason for a doubt that the image from flickr is not PD, we should not accept it. But to say, we don't want them at all is not the right way. There are a lot of free images we should use, without the the project woult be poorer. Commons is a collection of free files! Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No consensus to delete. Maxim(talk) 16:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
