[Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] The British Library releases 1 million images

[Matthew Flaschen]

On 12/16/2013 03:36 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> Remember that while US caselaw is clear on this point, it is less clear-cut
> elsewhere. We at WM tend to take a clear line that 2D reproductions are
> ineligible, but it's not a guaranteed absolute truth, particularly in the
> UK! We can predict how a court might rule... but they haven't yet, and
> claiming copyright is a legally defensible position in many cases.
>
> ("Legally defensible" is not always "correct", of course...)
>
> As a result, an explicit declaration is a positive thing and definitely
> should not be discouraged.

I would actually prefer it be more explicit.  The EXIF data says "public 
domain", but Flickr says "No known copyright restrictions" (why not 
"public domain" or "CC0"?).

However, we can do our own standard PD-Art analysis to confirm this.

Matt Flaschen