Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Brooklyn Museum-no known restrictions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:Brooklyn Museum-no known restrictions

[edit]

The "no known restrictions" statement on the Brooklyn Museum website is simply unreliable because of the following reason :


Teofilo (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting tired of you trying to make a en:WP:POINT. This is a source tag and not a copyright tag. "While the Brooklyn Museum cannot make an absolute statement on copyright status for legal reasons, it supports and encourages the Wikimedia community in researching and applying the copyright status tag that is most appropriate for their purposes." Multichill (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So let's rename it without the "no known restrictions" wording, and let's add {{Copyright-tag-still-required|{{{lang|}}}}} on it. And I am tired of your threat. Teofilo (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No known restrictions is perfectly fine; it's unlikely we'll have an image from the Brooklyn Museum that's licensed to us by the copyright holders. It's either PD or it's here in error. Whether or not we want to go through each and every one and add a copyright tag, well, that's a pain. If you're worried about, it's a closed stable set, go through them and nominate them for deletion if they're aren't Free under our guidelines.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference from everybody else's uploads ? Letting uploaders add fancy templates on their uploads is not a good policy. We should have clear rules on what uploaders are allowed to write on image description pages.
If the work is in the public domain, why on earth do we need a "permission" from the Museum inserted in the |permission= field of the information template ? Doesn't Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag apply , which makes any copyright claim from the photographer or photographer's employer meaningless ? In case we need the permission from the photographer or from the photgrapher's employer, do we have a clear copyright ownership assertion statement on the photographic work from the Brooklyn museum ? Was the photographer an employee of the Museum or was he an independent photographer who might want to protect his work in countries who do not recognise Bridgeman vs Corell like Britain or France ? Teofilo (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Brooklyn Museum's statement is not unreliable because of the DR linked above. That DR is based on the peculiar internal policy of Commons and it has nothing to do with the reliability or unreliability of the BM's statements about the copyright status in the US. The BM has come to the conclusion that there is no known US copyright restriction about this work. The exact reason is not mentioned, it is possibly because they consider that it was published before 1923. Some Commons users may disagree with the BM's conclusion either about the fact of the publication or about the notion of publication itself, etc., but that's another debate entirely. This tag can be useful as information. Of course, it does not mean that an image cannot be deleted A-if the statement is found to be incorrect about a particular image, or B-for a completely different reason, such as other requirements of the internal policies of Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Why should a "source" tag (as Multichill is saying above) be inserted in "|permission=" rather than in "|source=" within the information template, if not to make users believe that this is a license tag ? Teofilo (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep and delete individually the small number of instances where works are not OK when per policy we apply foreign laws instead. I'm sure people have incorrectly labeled stuff as PD-old as well; we don't delete the tag when that happens. Same is for all tags; every now and then they are misapplied (or are indicated as PD in one country but by our policy we use another's laws). The same is true of the Library of Congress's "no known copyright restrictions"; that is known to be relative to one country only, and every now and then a work turns up where we need to use the laws of a different country. Same thing here. Delete the one file (which was done) and move on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The Brooklyn Museum donated more than 3000 images to Commons, where's the harm if there is a small acknowledgment on the file page? I can't see anything wrong with the wording, either. -- Orionist ★ talk 10:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep If they were donated by the museum, makes no sense to remove this template. There may be a few mistakes like the one life above, but they can be fixed as and when found. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment In answer to the question about photographers' rights in Brooklyn Museum images (I'm a staff member in the Digital Lab at the Brooklyn Museum): nearly all of our images are (and have been since day one) created by Museum staff photographers. If not, the photographer's name is included in the file name and credited on our website and we would not include any of those images in our Wikimedia donations. We apply a CC-BY-NC to our images of 3D works in the PD and do not claim any rights in images of 2D works (obviously). --Deb Wythe, Brooklyn Museum Digital Lab (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Jcb (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Brooklyn_Museum-no_known_restrictions&oldid=51987657"