Template talk:Not-PD-US-URAA

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

Documentation following URAA consensus[edit]

Following the consensus at Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA, the template has been changed to say URAA-restored files are allowed. The documentation also needs updating. I suggest the paragraph saying "This template should NOT be applied to files uploaded after 1 March 2012. Files uploaded after this date which the template would apply to should be treated as other violations of the Commons:Licensing policy are" should be removed and replaced with "Images whose copyright was restored in the U.S. by the URAA are accepted at Wikimedia Commons" following the consensus at Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. Thincat (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks for your help. Please mention where else the documentation needs to be updated. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Is that really what the consensus was? I thought the WMF's argument was that community members are unlikely have enough information to tell whether the URAA applies to a particular image, so we can continue hosting them because their copyright status was unclear. Saying we accept "Images whose copyright was restored in the U.S. by the URAA" goes a lot further than this IMO. --Avenue (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
What wording do you suggest? I think we can add "until we receive a DMCA request" if we want match the WMF opinion, but IMHO, it is for all practical purpose, quite the same. Sincerely, I doubt we will receive DMCA requests for any URAA-affected files. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
What about something like this? "Because it is difficult to establish whether the URAA applies to a particular image, Commons hosts images that could potentially have had their copyright restored under the URAA until the Wikimedia Foundation receives a valid DMCA takedown request."
Yes, there may effectively be no practical difference here (e.g. for deletion decisions). However I think there is still a big difference between saying that we keep such files because we don't know whether they are protected by copyright, versus saying that we will keep the files despite them being protected by copyright. --Avenue (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I just tried a likely neutral edit, as we cannot really encourage uploading files with it unless you have better wording.--Jusjih (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I like Avenue's wording and for an additional reason. I already see it being argued that unless we can "prove" a particular image was not in US copyright on 31 December 1995 we cannot be sure URAA applied and so we do not know whether we can apply "URAA cannot be the sole reason for deletion" in this case, and so we must delete. Avenue's wording avoids this quibble but also better reflects the (uncertain) legal situation. I have a concern with "difficult to establish" in that "difficult to establish" applies in no end of other cases where we end up deleting under the com:PRP. So I tentatively suggest adopting Avenue's wording but have a documented policy that, rather than deleting URAA-possible images unless there is no reasonable doubt, we reverse the onus of proof or take a balance of probability decision. I don't think com:Licensing quite says this at present. Thincat (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree changes will be needed elsewhere, e.g. to COM:L, COM:EVID, and COM:PRP. I didn't mean to suggest that rewording this template would be enough on its own. --Avenue (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think to make the change you suggest. I won't do it myself because I am not a regular here and don't have my finger on the pulse. I'm mainly lurking here to get hints about what to do at ENWP where we shall almost certainly duplicate this template. I see Russavia is denying there's been any agreement at all. Thincat (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I am fine with Avenue's wording. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
May I propose that we "tolerate" rather than "accept" URAA-restored works? Perhaps Wikimedia Foundation purposely made ambiguity by "neither encouraging nor banning" these works. As Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act does cover Wikimedia Foundation, perhaps from now on only copyright holders who do want to enforce American copyright despite public domain at home may request taking down these works.--Jusjih (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree. See my comments here. Jee 05:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
But the rewording that has received recent general approval is
“Because it is difficult to establish whether the URAA applies to a particular image, Commons hosts images that could potentially have had their copyright restored under the URAA until the Wikimedia Foundation receives a valid DMCA takedown request.”
and that doesn't use the word "accept". "Hosts" seems to imply no particular approval or disapproval though it could, I suppose, be replaced with "tolerates". However, is
“Images whose copyright was restored in the U.S. by the URAA are tolerated at Wikimedia Commons”
being suggested? I think I definitely prefer the former, longer one for reasons I gave above.[1] Thincat (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I think "tolerates" conveys a certain distaste or reluctance. My impression from the RFC was that people tended more towards enthusiasm than reluctance, although there was quite a wide range of opinion. Anyway expressing an emotional stance here would IMO be unnecessarily divisive, and I prefer the more neutral "hosts" wording. --Avenue (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I am interpreting the proposal as follows: if a media file is in the public domain in the source country (and has failed to publish a copyright notice or some other proviso) or is freely licensed e.g. CC-BY-SA in the source country, then we are free to host it. If however, it is not freely licensed in the source country e.g. NC, ND, No-FoP, "All rights reserved", etc licenses, then we should delete it from Commons based on those copyright grounds. In short, we are ignoring the letter of the URAA unless someone comes along with a DMCA takedown request, and deleting files using other copyright concerns. Do we want to change the Precautionary Principle to also reflect this? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Work published outside the US after 1989 automatically became copyright in the US so we wouldn't ignore that (but their foreign copyright would disallow them anyway). Anyway, URAA did not apply in such cases. Yes, I think we are agreed that changes are also needed elsewhere. A slight analogy: we host foreign FoP on the assumption (which some may find doubtful) that US courts would apply the foreign law. COM:PRP does not address that doubt but maybe it is accepted that it is not a significant doubt. URAA is different in that US courts definitely (!) would observe URAA. Thincat (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily; Argentinean photographs have their copyrights lapse after 25 years, which means that 1989 photographs will leave copyright at the end of this year. So there will be works out of copyright in their home country that aren't out of copyright in the US, URAA or no URAA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I have amended my thought at Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA.--Jusjih (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


@Russavia: could you explain why you reverted the edits of both Yann and Jusjih multiple times? Yann rightfully (imho) closed the RFC and therefore it's imho also okay to adjust this template. I can't see any comments from you (Russavia) on this talk page, so I would appreciate it if you could at least give an explanation here since I don't like seeing an editwar on this template. Thanks. Trijnsteltalk 15:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

And it is surprising to see he requested the attention of the crats and then reverted a crat who responded. :( Jee 15:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
@Trijnstel:, firstly Commons:RFC#Ending_a_Request_for_Comment is quite clear that an RFC should be closed by an uninvolved editor. @Yann: was not an uninvolved editor (he opined quite heavily in the discussion), he came up with the close which saw "voting", and then he closed it. Because this is a policy discussion which has wider consequences for the very mission of this project, it is best left for a bureaucrat to close. Now if @Jusjih: wants to go and close that discussion as a bureaucrat on this project, then he is free to do so. Remembering of course, the expectations of a Commons:Bureaucrat, and what I mentioned here; and that the community expects a well thought out rationale for whichever way he closes it. russavia (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Yann might not have been uninvolved, but he closed the RFC nine days after he added his "proposed closing". Trijnsteltalk 17:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Doubting the fairness of Yann's closing, I just co-signed the closing as disinterested bureaucrat [2], then I would ask Russavia why reminding me the case and then reverting my more neutral edit.--Jusjih (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jusjih:, I did not ask for an endorsement of Yann's closure, I asked for a closure by a bureaucrat with a rationale for the closure, which is inline with Commons policy. I see no rationale from you. Within this rationale, I expect explanation and an expansion on these comments as to how they relate to Commons. russavia (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I would co-sign Yann's closure only because I would considered his judgment acceptable. If Wikimedia Foundation would consider keeping URAA-affected files too legally risky then it would have had us to mass-delete them well before now. Please see also The Wikimedia Foundation Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Policy why the Foundation does have a legal safe haven as the buffer zone. Keep doubting and I have to wait for more bureaucrats to judge the case.--Jusjih (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jusjih: that you have endorsed that close, and given your comments above, shows that you are seriously out-of-touch with the Commons commnunity, and absolutely clueless not only on the role of the WMF and the Board of Trustees in our projects, but on your role as a bureaucrat on this project, and also on the legal consequences for our editors and the project itself if we were to follow your endorsement. Sorry to have to say this, but it shows gross incompetence on your part. Facepalm (yellow).svg russavia (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
@Russavia: You must stop harassing people just because you don't agree with them. You need to realise that a majority of people here support this decision, including admins. Calling people incompetent because you have a different view is not acceptable. Yann (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
@Yann: we all know that this "vote" was heavily organised and canvassed by WMIL, WMAR, WMVE and WMES. Even your "closure" suggestion was heavily responded to by members of these chapters, who aren't otherwise active on this project. To call @Jusjih: incompetent isn't harassment, it is the result of a pretty logical knowledge of what is wrong with his endorsement and is basically a matter of fact. russavia (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Your insistance to distord facts to suit your PoV is incredible. You need to recognize that everyone is entitled to vote, and have his vote given an equal value to every one else. That's basic procedure on our modern world. And I am a bit fed-up by you canvassing on wiki and on IRC for supporting your view. Yann (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Yann, there is no distortion of facts here. And there certainly is no canvassing occurring; but rather discussion. Such as the discussion @Matanya: and I had in which the comment was made that I am not acting appropriately because I am not abiding by community consensus; and I said quite clearly that heavily canvassed opinion from WMIL, WMVE, WMAR and WMES, does not equal Commons community opinion. This isn't distortion, but matters of fact. Etc, etc, etc. russavia (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@User:Jusjih: The RFC was asking for the considerations of the Commons community, as regards its attitude towards contributors, members of the free-content Wikimedia movement and reusers of our project resources. With all due respect, this has nothing to do with the WMF, they could care less what we do to curate our content and they've explicitly stated multiple times they cannot give legal advice on these issues even with regards to DMCA takedown requests. Simply speaking, they've stated their "official" position, and whether it has any bearing on what we do is ultimately up to the Commons community. For all the WMF knows, we could be hosting a bunch of copyrighted files that no one has complained about and the WMF will not care unless they receive a DMCA takedown request.
The question has always been, does the Commons community care if a file is copyrighted or not, by URAA or by otherwise? Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle determines the arguments that run counter to the spirit of Wikimedia Commons, even if they do not run afoul of DMCA safe harbor provisions and the WMF's role in it. And per the result of the RFC, it needs to change to reflect the current consensus. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I have amended my thought at Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA.--Jusjih (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Template must be updated[edit]

{{editprotected}} The current revision conflicts on what is stated on places such Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA#Close and Commons:URAA-restored copyrights. Please restore to this revision, since from April to today the drama is clearly dormant. Lugusto 04:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this. The drama is dormant, but not dead.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
See the last update after a lot of discussions, which seems inline with current wordings. Jee 05:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
(sigh) Thanks for pointing it. I've withdraw the edit request. Lugusto 23:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Change link[edit]

{{edit protected}}

Please change the COM:DEL link to COM:DR. The latter is more accurate a shortcut and I have commandeered the former for a new page. Thanks. Alan Liefting (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Why use shortcuts in templates anyway? I'd prefer Commons:Deletion requests.    FDMS  4    18:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I agree. Don't think it makes much difference though, apart from a few clock cycles of the server. Alan Liefting (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


@Jarekt: Hi, What's the purpose of this edit, if not reopening a huge conflict, which seems to have settled down, if not resolved. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yann, my intentions are innocent. {{PD-Layout}} adds {{License template tag}} and other machine-readable matadata that makes this template look like a valid PD license. While {{Deprecated License-Layout}} does not add any metadata, while red border provides a warning sign. If we do not want warnings than {{Restriction-Layout}} would also be fine with me, but not {{PD-Layout}}. I am curious to find how many files have {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} instead of a license, that we did not detected before. --Jarekt (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
@Jarekt: Hi, you can see that it is used on several thousand files. You change resulted in making a warning with a neutral look, to a strong warning with a red border on a red background. I think we should keep the status quo, unless we reach a consensus in one way or another. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I changed it to {{Restriction-Layout}} to keep the status quo. --Jarekt (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

"New files should not be uploaded with this tag, or they will be deleted"[edit]

I don't think this is the case any more. I've nominated several files for deletion that were uploaded last month and they were all kept on the basis that URAA cannot be the sole reason. This tag is still on the files' description pages and is rather ambiguous. I suggest removing it the phrase quoted above, if it is not in-line with our current policy. Jolly Janner (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)