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

[SlimVirgin]

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:59, Cary Bass <cary at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I'd like to point out that in fact, these images would be accepted on
> to Commons, because Commons respects the country of origin rule rather
> than the PD-US rule that more often applies on the English Wikipedia.

Hi Cary, most of the image people I've checked with say that images on the
Commons are supposed to be PD in their country of origin *and* in the U.S.
Although there are images on the Commons that are PD in their country of
origin but *not* in the U.S., they usually carry a tag that places the PD
status in doubt and may be proposed for deletion. This means we can't use
them on WP.

Look at this image for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Refugees_from_Lydda.jpg

Palestinian refugees in the British Mandate of Palestine during the exodus
from their homes after Israeli troops moved in, July 1948, photographer
unknown, believed to be from, or working on behalf of, the British War
Office. First publication date not known, but I do know it had been
published by 1957. It's PD in Israel, which now governs part of that land.
It's PD in Jordan, which governs the other part. 99.9 percent certain it's
PD in the UK, which governed the land at the time. But not clearly PD in the
U.S. It has therefore been proposed for deletion from the Commons.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Refugees_from_Lydda.jpg

To use it on WP, I have to claim fair use, which means I'm expected to
deliberately reduce its quality. :)

Here is an official British War Office image from the 1940s, definitely
taken before 1951.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:King_Abdullah_of_Jordan_and_John_Glubb_Bagot.jpg
David Gerard got the British govt to confirm years ago that these are
regarded as PD worldwide. But not clearly PD in the U.S. because of the
January 1, 1996 rule; therefore we can't upload to Commons (safely) and
can't use in featured articles (safely).

The above are no means isolated examples. It seems to me that when we find
situations like this cropping up again and again, we have evidence of *reductio
ad absurdum*, evidence that the image policies are irrational, and way too
complex to expect editors to adhere to. All our content and behavioral
policies have to watch out for this -- if we find a content policy is trying
to force people to do things that everyone agrees are silly, we change the
policy.

But with the image policies, no matter the tangles we end up in, no matter
that we're basically telling every country in the world that they're not
allowed to order their own affairs, and no matter that there are no real
legal issues in the U.S. with images of this kind anyway, no sensible change
in the image policies is permitted. That's what confuses me. Is it just that
no one is bothering to sort them out, or is there resistance to it
somewhere? Is it Foundation-level, or what is it?

Sarah