[WikiEN-l] Images that are PD in their country of origin

[Ray Saintonge]

Durova wrote:

>>     In summary, it's up to Wikipedia to adopt its own policies. Personally,
>>     I would avoid too doctrinaire an approach; I would more tend to assume
>>     that if one takes a fair-minded approach to including material with
>>     uncertain copyright status the worst that can happen is that some
>>     ghostly obscure heir will emerge from the woodwork to make his claims.
>>     More likely, he will thank us for reviving the memory of his dead ancestor.
>>
>>     Ec
>>           
    With due respect toward Ray's very thoughtful analysis, I can't agree with that conclusion.

    Wikimedia Commons currently has 276 administrators and over 6 million
    images.  Compare that against en:wiki's 1,714 administrators and 3 million
    articles and you'll get an idea how thinly things are spread.  Commons has a
    serious deletion request backlog.

    Experienced contributors--particularly at the featured content level--have
    an obligation to set the example and put the best foot forward.  Yes, it can
    be frustrating to research copyright.  It would be considerably more
    frustrating if a copyright owner who didn't thank us for the appropriation
    complained to the press.

    About two years ago the featured picture program had an editor who was
    nominating copyright violations and running a vote stacking sockfarm.  He
    had actually gotten a copyvio promoted to featured picture before we
    realized it; fortunately we caught onto the problem before it ran on the
    main page.  Afterward a single administrator undid his siteban without
    discussion.  Last fall he was banned again when he actually threatened
    another editor.  During the noticeboard thread it turned out that he had
    gone over to the DYK program and had resumed submitting copyvios
    there--which apparently site culture was not doctrinaire enough about
    addressing.

    If a fellow who had already been sitebanned for copyvio can return and
    continue copyvios for a year at a venue which runs on the main page, then
    perhaps a more doctrinaire approach is exactly what we need.

    -Lise

      

These are important consequences, but mostly begin to stray from the real issue.

Yes, lack of good administrators is a big problem, but the policies that they administer would remain the same without regard to the number of administrators. A simpler formulation of the rules could ease the administrators' burdens. Alternatively, the solution is more administrators.

I agree that experienced contributors need to set an example, but that too is within the rules as defined. Thus they too suffer from a lack of clear definition.  I don't see complaints to the press as a big cause for worry. Remember that we are dealing with works whose copyright status is debatable, and not just last year's pop trivia whose rights are very clear. If we rediscover something that hasn't seen the light of day for fifty years, the owner's beginning his complaints with the press would ring a little hollow if in all those fifty years he took no other steps to protect those rights.

The story of the badly-behaved editor doesn't help us either. What we do about such behaviour is about the application of policy, not about determining what that copyright policy in fact is. I would even venture to guess that the individual in question would have as enthusiastically violated a liberal copyright policy as a stringent one. I'm sorry if my use of the word "doctrinaire" misled you in that direction. I was really referring to deciding the edge cases where the existence of a valid copyright is debatable.

Ec