2009/3/30 Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>om>: Strictly speaking no it doesn't. For example it would allow images that used the "the identity of an author shall be regarded as unknown if it is not possible for a person to ascertain his identity by reasonable inquiry; but if his identity is once known it shall not subsequently be regarded as unknown." clause under UK law. Good luck meeting that requirement though. No. Commons lack of flexibility exists partly in order to keep things understandable. This wouldn't be legal. -- geni

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod(a)mccme.ru>wrote;wrote: I'm still puzzled on what is the right thing to do with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/File:Shakespeare.jpg which was deleted twice and then reuploaded. When a museum claims to own copyright on a several hundred years piece, do we concede? I recall seeing many cases of bogus copyright claims being dismissed and file kept on Commons. So what happened there?

Hoi, You just posted what is generally believed to be the position of the WMF. You did not answer the question. What picture is referred to? Where are the discussions about this picture? Is this the picture believed to be the bard as he really looked like ?? If this is indeed the picture that is talked about, I would love to know the motivation for its deletion. I also seem to remember that it was a featured picture on the English Wikipedia... Thanks, GerardM 2009/3/30 Ryan Kaldari <kaldari(a)gmail.com>

Hoi, Public Domain is a side issue. The real issue is about how to cooperate with archives and museums. The fact that something that is in the public domain can be used in any which way is true but largely irrelevant when you consider that only a fraction of the material that is in archives and museums has been digitised. It is irrelevant when it is the museums themselves who want to digitise their material and make it available to the public. The issue is how do we deal with material that cannot be sourced, relevant material that has no provenance. The question is when you have important material that is effectively orphaned. Where the organisation that has the material in its collection is willing to give it to us. Where the only thing known about a collection can be as little as we got it at this date from that person who was the son of so and so and where this was at a time when we did not have the legalese form that satisfies our modern day copyright jitters... When we are to collaborate with museums and archives, we have to treat them as partners. The real issue is how do we partner and do more then just say "thank you". We have more to offer then Flickr, we just have to consider the position of our partners and demonstrate this in what we do. Thanks, GerardM 2009/3/30 Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod(a)mccme.ru>

Sorry, I still do not understand. Well, I all for cooperating with museums. Imagine though we suck and a museum X decides to cooperate with flickr and put properly licensed and attributed images there. We are only talking about PD-images. What prevents us from taking these images from flickr and uploading them on commons with proper attributon? Cheers Yaroslav