I think it depends on the image. For example, we can declare http://www.flickr.com/photos/brooklyn_museum/2488876755/ to be PD-US (pre-1923).
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Ejdzej Wikipedysta < ejdzej.wikipedysta@gmail.com> wrote:
2008/6/2 Ejdzej Wikipedysta ejdzej.wikipedysta@gmail.com:
2008/6/1 Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net:
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/
- The copyright is in the public domain because it has expired;
- 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:
- PD-Old
- PD-because?
- PD-not-really-PD ;) -- DANGER
- 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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l