Template talk:NoUploads

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Blanket[edit]

Sounds a bit TOO much like a blanket warning to me. An artist may well produce PD or similar artwork which is absolutely okay even if he's still alive. Maybe add a little note like 'unless it can be shown that the particular work is licensed under a Commons-compatible license'.

The fact that this is a warning template to discourage illegal uploads should not make it infer an incorrect or incomplete statement. Ingolfson 09:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly not what was intended with this template. It should be used for cases where it is absolutely clear that there are going to be no PD images any time soon, like Picasso. It's absolute precise for these cases .
It's intended for People who look up Picasso, see that "oh, there aren't any Picasso paintings, what a shame, then I'm going to upload some". I think it definitely can make a difference in those cases.
It is NOT intended for living artists who work with CC licenses or any other exceptions. A template that says "may not be in the public domain" is as good as no template, since it applies to pretty much everything.
My observation is, that the more text and rules and exceptions you put into one template or warning, the more people tend to ignore it. --Fb78 (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad name[edit]

Hi,
{{NoUploads}} seems badly named. A better name would be {{NoUploads}}+reason like {{NoUploadsFrenchArchitect}}.
Liné1 (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a general template that just informs that there are maybe problems with a person. The reasons can always be different and does not really have to do something with the person itself. The architect/sculptor/painter/... can be from every country of the world (it does not matter), the only thing that matters is where the buildings/artwork/... is located.
  • French architect -> building in France -> not ok
  • French architect -> building in Finland -> ok
  • French sculptor -> work of art in France -> not ok
  • French sculptor -> work of art in Finland -> not ok
  • French sculptor -> work of art in UK -> ok
  • Australian architect -> building in Australia -> ok
  • Australian architect -> building in France -> not ok
  • ...
There are so many countries in the world and each has its own laws. Thus there are so many different situations, it's impossible to create specific templates for each of those situations. -- Cecil (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's why it should only be used in such situations where it's absolutely clear.
All the exceptions you named are Freedom of panorama, which is clearly stated in the template.
I strongly oppose the idea of creating a template for every possible exception.
There are so ridiculously FEW exceptions that it's really not worth creating individual templates. Each case has to be discussed anyway. And if there is a valid exception, it should be stated clearly on the image description page. --Fb78 (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wording[edit]

Rocket000 changed the opening sentence ("Works by this artist are not in the public domain. They are protected by international copyright laws at least until 70 years after his/her death.") into "Works by this artist may not be in the public domain. They may be protected by international copyright laws at least until 70 years after his/her death. Please do not upload photographs or scans of works by this artist, except those covered by freedom of panorama or those that are freely licensed."

I find this wording ambiguous. Are we talking here about original artworks put by the artists themselves in the Public Domain or about authorised derivative works? In my opinion, the NoUploads template should not be used in the (extremely rare, I presume) first case. If we are talking about legit derivative works, Rocket's "or those that are freely licensed" is a bit loose IMO: it seems to imply that it's OK to upload a freely-licensed derivative work even if the original artwork is protected. I believe my last edit covers the case: "Please do not upload photographs or scans of works by this artist, unless they are covered by freedom of panorama or when you have the authorisation to do so." Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to be ambiguous. We don't know for sure if the everything by certain creators is free or not. The current wording may discourage uploading of free material. The thing is, most artists' work is not in the public domain so I'm not even sure if I see the point behind this template anyway. It's geared exclusively towards editors yet is in content categories. it seems to imply that it's OK to upload a freely-licensed derivative work even if the original artwork is protected. It's impossible to have freely licensed work if the original is protected, but we can specify this if you want. Rocket000(talk) 11:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm starting to see how you saw it. Derivatives never even crossed my mind. Maybe that why it's seems loosely worded. In my mind, "or those that are freely licensed" is pretty clear (that's COM:L in a nutshell), but you're right, it could be interpreted as "if I make my own version, I can say it's free". Ok, what I meant is if the original creator (or their heirs) have released the original work under a free license. Rocket000(talk) 11:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I've always seen this template as a kind of "please read COM:DW" sign. The way I see it, it's supposed to be on categories regarding Picasso, Dubuffet or the likes of them. Are there many artists who have released their original work under a free license? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we have tons of artwork from artists that that lived in the last 70 years. This is also completely wrong about the "international copyright laws". For example, it doesn't apply to American artists since the US didn't go by the author's life until 1978.[1] They went by publication date and required a copyright notice present. I understand the reasons behind this template but it's very misleading and Eurocentric. Take a look at en:List of countries' copyright length and en:Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works for what international copyright laws really are. Rocket000(talk) 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Nor does it apply to Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Iranian, etc., works. It's not even international copyright law; there's many works of Picasso that are free to use in the United States, like "Portrait of Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler". It's a combination of local law and Commons policy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Why not just skip that part, then? "These works or works by this artist are not in the public domain. They are protected by copyright laws. Please do not upload, etc." Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! The wording of this template is really bad for cases where it is used on category pages which do contain works that are PD. For example, Category:Marcel Duchamp currently says "These works or works by this artist are not in the public domain", and yet beneath it are images of works, impling that Wikimedia Commons is hosting copyright violations, or works which are not "free". Some of the images in Category:Marcel Duchamp are clearly PD due to {{PD-1923}}.

On English Wikisource, we have s:Template:Copyright author to be used when we are quite confident that the majority of works will not be PD, and should not be uploaded. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Same deal for works in Category:Lillian Genth. It is misleading for the same reason that {{PD-old}} was misleading until recently. I am going to change it. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

this is a really bad template. it says don't upload, because it may be a copyright vio!? editors will blow through this in a heartbeat. see Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. i have created an upload with caution template, for example at Category:Tony Smith. Slowking4†@1₭ 04:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Date?[edit]

I think this template could be improved by adding the date when the works will come into the public domain. Clearly for living creators this is not possible, but for Picasso the date is now known. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking exactly same. Palosirkka (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Railwayfan2005 and Palosirkka. I'm thinking the same too. I can had a parameter but how ? more specificely, how should the template be affected ? (disapearing on the date ? it seems a bit rough...) Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello VIGNERON! The disappearing template would indeed be the best if you ask me since the template has no other use. Or if that proves too difficult an easy solution would be just to mention a "don't upload until" date (year). Palosirkka (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Or maybe it could add a hidden category like Category:Undelete in 2044, so in that year, we could have volunteers to upload some of that artist's works, and manually check if the template should be removed or not. --UAwiki (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)