I think it depends on the image. For example, we can declare
to be PD-US
(pre-1923).
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Ejdzej Wikipedysta <
ejdzej.wikipedysta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2008/6/2 Ejdzej Wikipedysta
<ejdzej.wikipedysta(a)gmail.com>om>:
2008/6/1 Florian Straub
<flominator(a)gmx.net>et>:
http://www.flickr.com/people/brooklyn_museum/
Which license tag should we use for those? PD-old?
No, unless its
* reproduction of old photo with expired copyright (PD-old)
* reproduction of old painting (PD-art)
Oh, wait... they taged it with "no known copyright restrictions".
This seems to be nice, but please read:
http://www.flickr.com/commons/usage/
1. The copyright is in the public domain because it has expired;
2. The copyright was injected into the public domain for other
reasons, such as failure to adhere to required formalities or
conditions;
3. The institution owns the copyright but is not interested in
exercising control; or
4. The institution has legal rights sufficient to authorize others
to use the work without restrictions.
My view is:
1. PD-Old
2. PD-because?
3. PD-not-really-PD ;) -- DANGER
4. CopyrightedFreeUse?
More troublesome than chossing copyright tag is that "participating
institutions" do not precise why there are "no known restrictions" and
wash their hands with disclaimer: "IF YOU MAKE USE OF A PHOTO (...)
YOU ARE REMINDED TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF APPLICABLE LAW
BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH A PARTICULAR NEW USE"
--
Wikipedysta:A.J.
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l