On 10/23/06, Fredrik Josefsson fred_chessplayer@yahoo.se wrote:
On behalf of a user who asked a question on Commons:
Question about [[s:en:Template:PD-UN]] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/en:Template:PD-UN and its Chinese and French versions hereto. When Wikisource was a multilingual site accepting all languages, it had so many UN Security Council resolutions posted by various users unaware of UN copyright. As the UN Headquarters is subject to the same USA laws, works published there are copyrighted in the same way as works published in the USA.
Works published in the USA between 1978 and 1 March 1989 without copyright notices and without subsequent copyright registrations are in the public domain in the USA, but should subsequent copyright registrations be validly made, the works become copyrighted. I would like to ask if these works are acceptable here. This is critical as most, if not all, images at [[:Category:Stamps of United Nations]] may be indeed copyrighted.
I thought I ask at the mailinglist, see if anyone can provide an answer...
/ Fred-Chess
This basically seems to be saying that the UN's materials are subject to US copyright laws. Which means they don't really fall into a special copyright category and should be treated as any other copyrighted material (and we probably shouldn't have a PD-UN template, which implies that UN material is uniquely PD for any particular reason, in the way that works of the U.S. federal government are PD).
The UN seems to consider themselves a regular copyright holder as well (http://www.un.org/copyright.htm), which I admit somewhat surprises me (I guess they just want the right to control it, since I doubt they are trying to turn a profit). In any cases, the reasoning on the template looks correct, but all it basically says is "this isn't PD unless it is PD for some other reason", which probably means that the template is misleading at best for most people.
FF
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 http://www.unesco.org/culture/copyright/html_eng/ucc71ms.pdf Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Conventionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Copyright_Conventiondone at Paris on 24 July 1971 require copyright protection for works published for the first time by the United Nations.
Jusjih
On 10/29/06, J JIH jus168jih@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