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