It may be worth mentioniong to Hatfield House, also, that the wording they objected to in the PD-Art tag has been changed and that the tag now explicity says "Please be aware that depending on local laws, re-use of this content may be prohibited or restricted in your jurisdiction". (Victoria Perry may not have noticed, as this was done before her email of 29th August). I would be happy to follow this up with her if anyone would like me to. Michael Cary Bass wrote: Hi all; I hope that this will address the matter of the new PD-Art policy and its effects with some bit of resolution. Mike has forwarded me an email from the Hatfield House, which he stated I should forward to the Commons community with his comment about the attribution of the photograph; seeing as it was his comment was being used as a basis for the new policy change, we should certainly adopt this comment in its implementation. I've created a template: <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Disputed_copyright>, which I hope can be used for cases such as these. It's a simple notice, like "Personality rights" or "Trademark" that makes a point, informs, yet doesn't detract from our own policies. I've applied the template on the two images the Hatfield house has mentioned, using language I painstakingly worked on to appease as many of us as possible. I'm fairly certain this will address the wants of this particular claimant and I'm absolutely certain this does not violate our own precepts. Yes, we do believe it copyfraud to claim copyright on photographs of old artwork wherever possible but we acknowledge that there are some locales with silly laws that protect the copyright photographer of PD paintings, and those should be acknowledged to some extent; without going crazy and mass deleting these images. --Cary Mike Godwin wrote: one. >>> --m >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> >>>> From: "Victoria Perry, Hatfield House" >>>> Date: August 29, 2008 9:14:11 AM PDT >>>> To: &lt;mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org&gt; >>>> Subject: FW: Elizabeth I portrait at Hatfield House >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I am writing regarding my below e-mail. >>>> >>>> There are still some images of ours on Wikipedia with incorrect >>>> copyright notices. The main issue, is that the copyright notice states >>>> that "This photograph was taken in the U.S. or in another country where >>>> a similar rule applies" (e.g. see >>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Elizabeth_I_Rainbow_Portrait.jpg >>>> also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Elizabeth1England.jpg ) These >>>> particular paintings have never left the UK and therefore the above >>>> statement is incorrect. Like I have said in the past, we are happy for >>>> our images to appear on Wikipedia but I really think that you should >>>> make sure that the copyright citation is correct. >>>> >>>> With best wishes, >>>> >>>> Vicki Perry >>>> Assistant Archivist >>>> Library and Archives >>>> Hatfield House >>>> Hatfield >>>> Herts >>>> AL9 5AH >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Victoria Perry >>>> Sent: 14 February 2008 09:54 >>>> To: 'Mike Godwin' >>>> Subject: RE: Elizabeth I portrait at Hatfield House >>>> >>>> Dear Mike Godwin, >>>> >>>> I wonder if you have had chance to consider my below e-mail yet. >>>> >>>> I would like to make a suggestion if possible. We do not want to have >>>> the image removed from Wikipedia, but we are concerned that a user has >>>> uploaded the image and claimed copyright in it. I would like to attach a >>>> tag to the image stating that: >>>> >>>> "the image is a photographic reproduction of an out of copyright work. >>>> The photograph was taken in the UK and is considered to be in copyright >>>> in the UK but not in the US and users should check the laws in their >>>> respective countries before re-use". >>>> >>>> I think that this is a fair summary of the copyright situation with >>>> regards to the image and if it is possible I think attaching it to any >>>> photographs that we have taken that have appeared on Wikipedia could be >>>> an acceptable solution to both us and yourselves. >>>> >>>> Best wishes >>>> >>>> Vicki Perry >>>> Assistant Archivist >>>> Library and Archives >>>> Hatfield House >>>> Hatfield >>>> Herts >>>> AL9 5AH >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Mike Godwin >>>> Sent: 17 January 2008 12:20 >>>> To: Victoria Perry >>>> Subject: Re: Elizabeth I portrait at Hatfield House >>>> >>>> >>>> I have sent a query to my copyright lawyer colleagues and will get >>>> back to you. >>>> >>>> >>>> --Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 17, 2008, at 4:50 AM, Victoria Perry wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Dear Mike Godwin, >>>>> >>>>> I have been passed your e-mail address by David Monniaux, and I hope >>>>> that you will be able to help me. >>>>> >>>>> On the Elizabeth I page of Wikipedia, there is a digital photograph >>>>> of a >>>>> portrait of Elizabeth I that we own the original of. As I'm sure you >>>>> are >>>>> aware, the law in the UK and the US differs as to copyright in >>>>> copies of >>>>> works of art that are out of copyright. The digital image in question >>>>> was taken from a photograph of the painting that was taken in the UK >>>>> in >>>>> 1985. >>>>> >>>>> On the page >>>>> >>>>> http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag >>>>> >>>>> Wikipedia says that: >>>>> >>>>> "Where the photograph was taken in a country (such as the UK) where >>>>> faithful photographic reproductions of 2D works of art are generally >>>>> considered to be protected by copyright, or in a country (such as a >>>>> Nordic country) that provides 'simple photograph' protection: In >>>>> such a >>>>> case, either take your own photograph of the original work of art and >>>>> license your photographic copyright under a free license, or approach >>>>> the photographic copyright owner and ask for the copyright to be >>>>> released under a free license." >>>>> >>>>> I feel that this rule has not been adhered to in this case as the >>>>> photograph was taken in the UK. In fact, the uploader of the image has >>>>> now changed the author to 'Hatfield House' and made it look as >>>>> though we >>>>> have released the image into the public domain! >>>>> >>>>> I am aware that international copyright law is a complicated subject >>>>> to >>>>> which no-one appears to have a satisfactory answer and we have no wish >>>>> to have the image removed from this free resource. However, maybe the >>>>> copyright notice could be altered to reflect the true position. The >>>>> photograph was taken in the UK, the image scanned in the UK and was >>>>> uploaded in the UK. Surely then if someone in the UK then re-used the >>>>> image for their own work they would have broken UK copyright law? >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps it could be stated something to the effect that 'This is a >>>>> photograph taken in the UK of a piece of artwork whose copyright has >>>>> expired. It is considered to be in the Copyright of the Marquess of >>>>> Salisbury in the UK and to be out of Copyright in the US. Please make >>>>> sure you know the copyright position in your own country before re- >>>>> using >>>>> it', or something similar. We are happy for our photograph to be used >>>>> (as indeed it has been all over the web) but obviously as we are in >>>>> the >>>>> middle of a major process of digitising some of our paintings, it >>>>> would >>>>> be best to get this issue cleared up. If, for example, in the future, >>>>> this were to come up again over a painting that we have only >>>>> photographed once and have only issued to people under licence (for >>>>> example a publisher's licence that restricts its use to the purpose >>>>> for >>>>> which the image was supplied) would you take the signed licence >>>>> agreement as a reason to take the image down? >>>>> >>>>> With best wishes and thank you for your time, >>>>> >>>>> Vicki Perry >>>>> >>>>> (This is a link to the image: >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Elizabeth_Rainbow_Portrait.jpg >>>>> There >>>>> is also one at >>>>> >>>>> >>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Elizabeth_I_Rainbow_Portrait.jpg >>>> >>>>> , which states that the photograph was taken in the US. It was not and >>>>> this should also be changed. Similarly: >>>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Elizabeth1England.jpg states >>>>> that the photograph was taken in the US when it was not. >>>>> ______________ >>>>> >>>>> Vicki Perry, >>>>> >>>>> Assistant Archivist, >>>>> >>>>> Hatfield House, >>>>> >>>>> Hatfield, >>>>> >>>>> Herts. AL9 5NF >>>>> >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAki9jFoACgkQyQg4JSymDYlkZACgyvs/PvPPEz2+jJqRZ3MMYKWk /LAAoKxc1Hap9V/RFC13NgQvB54oAARz =aepi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----