File talk:Separation axioms.png

On w:en:Image:Separation axioms.png, Quadell wrote (citing a template)

This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship.

I suppose that this is probably true, so I've tagged this as Template:PD. If we get a template here analogous to w:en:Template:PD-ineligible (the template that Quadell used), then that would be even better. But if it's disputed that this is ineligible, then the tag should revert to Template:CopyrightedFreeUse. -- Toby Bartels 11:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you want to use {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, I say go right ahead. If the image really is public domain, we don't have the responsibility to tell people that. Anyone who cares can make that decision for themselves.

(Of course, one could argue that by tagging it {{PD}} you've released it to the public domain anyway. :) Dbenbenn 16:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Feel free to ignore the following comment if you don't feel like worrying about it.) I'm confused. Toby, you're the author of this image. If it's eligible for copyright, you get to decide what license it has. And if it isn't eligible, you can still stick your preferred license tag on it; others will simply ignore it. Thus, I'm confused by the HTML comment you recently added to the description. Not a big deal, though. Dbenbenn 06:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't normally release things to the public domain, and I never intended to release this either. (It's not that I'm unwilling to release them, I just don't, at least not normally.) As you mentioned above, one might be able to argue that (since I'm the owner), I did release (however inadvertently) by accepting Quadell's argument and attaching the {{PD}} tag; but my best guess is that this argument wouldn't fly. So, given that I have no intention of releasing this except under my usual "No rights reserved." licence (PD is not a licence), I want to report its status accurately. Quadell's argument convinces me that it is PD; but if Quadell is wrong, then it's not. If it were really important to be sure, then I could make an exception and explicitly release it into the PD just so that everybody could be certain what was what. But that's not necessary; so I'm just reporting the facts as well as I can.

That said, I think you're right that I should put the {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} tag on. If anybody doubts Quadell's argument and removed the {{PD}} tag, then the {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} tag will automatically remain. So I'll stick that in as well!

-- Toby Bartels 23:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)