Yes, I am working on this now, and will put up a proposal to amend policy on Commons in the next day or two. It is of particular relevance to UK Crown Copyright works.
Michael
On 30 Dec 2013, at 14:56, Fæ <faewik+commons(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> The URAA is rather more than theoretical. There is more milage in
> developing a defensive approach for orphan works. Again I think an
> inclusive discussion on Commons is more useful if anyone intends to
> progress this.
>
> Fae
> On 30 Dec 2013 14:04, "Newyorkbrad" <newyorkbrad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have no role or participation on Commons, but from my work on English WP
>> I'm aware of the very real copyright status of "free as a practical matter
>> although someone could theoretically make a disputed technical argument
>> otherwise."
>>
>> One solution, where there is a good-faith argument the image is free and no
>> rights-holder claiming otherwise, would be a disclaimer. Perhaps something
>> along the lines of "It is believed this image is in the public domain [or,
>> the status of this image depends on resolution of an open legal issue, or
>> whatever] and therefore eligible for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons and for
>> re-use. However, it is possible that the free status of this image could be
>> disputed because [brief explanation of reason]. Potential re-users should
>> therefore proceed cautiously."
>>
>> I hasten to add that this would be appropriate only where the impediment to
>> freedom is seen as mostly theoretical, not to screw over legitimate claims
>> by rightsholders or by people with privacy interests implicated by the
>> image.
>>
>> Newyorkbrad
