<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 11/10/06, <b class="gmail_sendername"><a href="mailto:commons-l-request@wikimedia.org">commons-l-request@wikimedia.org</a></b> <<a href="mailto:commons-l-request@wikimedia.org">
commons-l-request@wikimedia.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>Message: 2<br>Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:58:32 -0500
<br>From: Fastfission <<a href="mailto:fastfission@gmail.com">fastfission@gmail.com</a>><br>Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Commons-l Digest, Vol 17, Issue 14<br>To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <<a href="mailto:commons-l@wikimedia.org">
commons-l@wikimedia.org</a>><br>Message-ID:<br> <<a href="mailto:98dd099a0610291358w27b32633kf10caee0a2b32e7d@mail.gmail.com">98dd099a0610291358w27b32633kf10caee0a2b32e7d@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
<br><br>On 10/29/06, J JIH <<a href="mailto:jus168jih@gmail.com">jus168jih@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> Please explain how the template is probably misleading at best for most<br>> people. The content of [[s:en:Template:PD-UN]] has been based on USA
<br>> copyright law and prolonged discussions at English Wikisource when so many<br>> UN Security Council Resolutions have arised the copyright concern. If you<br>> can think of better content, please be more specific. Users outside the USA
<br>> must also be aware of the laws in their countries as countries that are<br>> party to Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention done at Paris on<br>> 24 July 1971 require copyright protection for works published for the first
<br>> time by the United Nations.<br><br>I think most people who see something that is a PD-UN template will<br>assume that there is some special reason that the UN material is PD.<br>As the template explains in a round-about way, this isn't true. You
<br>might as well not have a PD-UN template, or have it say very<br>explicitly "UN material is subject to US copyright. Please see<br>such-and-such a page about US copyright law to determine if this is in<br>the public domain."
<br><br>Having PD templates seems to imply special PD categories -- 90% of<br>them say, "This work is PD because of this reason." It's better, in my<br>opinion, to not have PD templates which say, "This is PD because of
<br>one of the four reasons, none of which have anything specifically to<br>do with the UN." It makes it hard for anyone else to know WHY it is<br>PD, for one thing (which reason is it?), and it is probably extra-hard
<br>on people whose English isn't that great (since it is a rather<br>complicate way to explain, "UN material is the same as any other<br>copyrighted material in the US."<br><br>Just my take on it, but I'm not leading any campaign against it.
<br><br>FF<br></blockquote></div><br>I have an excellent news from English Wikisource. After a major copyright dispute for one year about UN resolutions, they are now found to be in the public domain. Please see the revised [[s:en:Template:PD-UN]] and it is much better, isn't it? I will prepare to add a trilingual tag from Chinese, English, and French Wikisource to Commons soon.
<br><br>Jusjih<br>