Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Info non-talk.svg This page is for discussing improvements to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. For discussions of specific copyright questions, please go to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Discussions that do not relate to changes to the page Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag may be moved, with participants notified with the template {{subst:moved to VPC|Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag}}.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 31 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.


Template {{PD-Art-100}} is not mentioned. Why? I think, it must be mentioned at the beginning of the page.

Change license from PD-Art to PD-Art|PD-old[edit]

Small discussion here. -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 18:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Add'l Example[edit]

User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow Based on the rationale any photograph of an official portrait of a US Federal Official (and generally, of any 2D artwork (that is PD by virtue of something other than the work's age) I suggest we add this example:

Photograph of an official portrait of the current US President found on the Internet[edit]

✓OK as long as the image is or appears to be a faithful reproduction of a 2D work, as {{PD-USGov}} applies to official portraits of sitting presidents.

--Elvey (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think that will work as this tag is designed for use when a 2D artwork has been photographed. It's the original subject, not the photograph of it, that has to be 2D. The US president is 3D, I believe.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I doubt you really mean to say that this tag would be inappropriate for a photograph of the Mona Lisa. Lisa Gherardini (its subject) was 3D too. Perhaps you misread what I wrote; the title of this section contains two 'of's. Still, I've changed my mind about adding this one. --Elvey (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

More clarification when there is a notice of copyright claim[edit]

I faced with one question when I uploaded this picture which is considered to be PD-Art. The source of this picture include an explicit claim with the text that reads, "Images from the collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society. Not to be reproduced without permission." I posted this questions on Commons:Village pump and all editors who responded think that we don't need to worry too much about that notice, we don't need to ask for their permission and we don't need to include that notice. As a newbie who just started uploading the PD-Art, the notice is intimidating and almost scare me off from uploading. Some suggested adding some little note about it if we want to be thorough. I think it will be great if we have a very clear policy on what to do in this particular case so contributors are more comfortable with the PD-Art thing. If there is an example like below, it will be super clear to us and we will feel more comfortable that we do the right thing.

Photograph of an Old Master found on the Internet, but there is an explicit notice of copyright claim[edit]

✓OK as long as the image is or appears to be a faithful reproduction of a 2D public domain work of art. As per WMF's position, it is considered to be in the public domain even when there is a notice about copyright claim. The uploaders should not include that notice when uploading to Commons because it could be confusing to people who will reuse the picture.

Any thought? Z22 (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Good one. No 's' in 'uploaders' tho. --Elvey (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of which copyright can be ignored[edit]

Looking at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Figurins, Auca del Senyor Esteve, (1917).jpg I realized that the wording of the paragraph describing that foreign copyright can be ignored was not very clear as to which copyright it is talking about. The copyright that we do not care about is the copyright that (in some countries) arises when creating a reproduction. We do, however, care about the copyright of the work which is being reproduced and this needs to be PD in both the US and the country of origin. I tried to clarify this here, feel free to change the wording if you think it is not clear enough. Thanks and regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine. I have just made a small change for consistency: exemption -> exception. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)