2008/6/2 Ejdzej Wikipedysta <ejdzej.wikipedysta@gmail.com>:
> 2008/6/1 Florian Straub <flominator@gmx.net>:Oh, wait... they taged it with "no known copyright restrictions".
>> http://www.flickr.com/people/brooklyn_museum/
>>
>> Which license tag should we use for those? PD-old?
>
> No, unless its
> * reproduction of old photo with expired copyright (PD-old)
> * reproduction of old painting (PD-art)
This seems to be nice, but please read:
http://www.flickr.com/commons/usage/
1. The copyright is in the public domain because it has expired;
2. The copyright was injected into the public domain for other
reasons, such as failure to adhere to required formalities or
conditions;
3. The institution owns the copyright but is not interested in
exercising control; or
4. The institution has legal rights sufficient to authorize others
to use the work without restrictions.
My view is:
1. PD-Old
2. PD-because?
3. PD-not-really-PD ;) -- DANGER
4. CopyrightedFreeUse?
More troublesome than chossing copyright tag is that "participating
institutions" do not precise why there are "no known restrictions" and
wash their hands with disclaimer: "IF YOU MAKE USE OF A PHOTO (...)
YOU ARE REMINDED TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF APPLICABLE LAW
BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH A PARTICULAR NEW USE"
--
Wikipedysta:A.J.
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l