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