Commons talk:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA

Moving if no closure?

As Dcoetzee updated the header of this DR, the consensus quite clearly resulted in no mass deletion. In the case we keep the general discussion here, I would suggest moving the page so it would not be titled "Deletion request" − even though DR are often the way we deal with such discussions (as Túrelio reminded) − and to more clearly state that this a general discussions. Otherwise users would (quite understandably) focus on this issue. Jean-Fred (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I would suggest relaunching it as a request for comment, at Commons:Requests for comment/Files copyrighted in the US under the URAA. However, I wouldn't do that until we have some clear legal guidance from WMF, because that will be essential to framing the discussion on what to do. (I'd be tempted to close the DR, the outcome of which is clear, and wait to open the RFC until that happens, but people might not like that.) Rd232 (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Jean-Fred. The DR discussion accomplished it's goals:

• Consensus was reached: Do not proceed with mass deletion at this point in time.
• The scope of the problem was assessed, in terms of number of files possibly effected.
• No fewer than nine scenarios were proposed, and discussed, as preparation for many possible eventualities.

This matter is complex, involving U.S. and non-U.S. copyright law, as well as US domestic and international artists and probably the same regarding hosting of images. Further action should not be taken until WMD provides guidance, presumably with the benefit of counsel. Rd232 is sensible. I agree, closing the DR and waiting to open an request for comment would be best. But given the level of agitation at present, it might be better to keep the DR open, so extra comments may be made in the last, unstructured section of the DR. It might also be prudent to de-escalate the wording and implied urgency of the language in the call to arms (call to action?) drop down banner for the site. Otherwise, anyone who cares, or even feels obligated to act out of good conscience will come rushing on over to help, and there really isn't much constructive purpose to further agitating and increasing anxiety without being able to take action (while we wait for input from WMD). --FeralOink (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Please forgive me if I am speaking out of order, and at excessive length, as I am a recent arrival to Wikipedia and Wikimedia. --FeralOink (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi FeralOink, I'm happy to amend it if you think the current wording implies excessive urgency. I've tried to emphasise that the mass deletion option is off the table. Like Rd232, I think the consensus of this discussion has become relatively clear, but we really need to hear from the WMF before moving forward. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The "number of files possibly effected" was not assessed - we just know a rough minimum. --Saibo (Δ) 16:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, if we want the WMF to pay attention to this issue, we need to keep the climate "dramatic enough". Otherwise the WMF will think we can deal entirely with it without help. Teofilo (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Sabre F-86

I don't get it... Why does the following picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PAFF-86s.jpg have a nomination for deletion, and the discussion page links to this page? --CyclePat (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Because it has the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag on it, which is what this DR is about. There is not going to be immediate action, but quite likely at some point it will need to be reviewed, as that tag probably won't be allowed to continue in use (since the legal questions it mentions were just resolved). The photograph you mention is almost certainly still under copyright in the U.S., as its copyright would have been restored by the URAA, despite the fact that it later became PD in its (presumed) origin country of Pakistan. The main question on that one is that since it's a government work, if we consider expiration of those terms as a sort of special case of PD-author (since, by enacting the law, the "author" is setting a term on its own works). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Government works in Pakistan expire 50 years first publication, which was in 2007 for this work. Due to the URAA, works first published 1923 that were in copyright on the URAA date (1996 in Pakistan) are still in copyright in the US. In this case as Carl says it may be PD-author, but that'll be decided later when it's nominated for deletion. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal - defragment the preceeding list of proposals

this list of proposals is somewhat "fragmented"; that makes it harder to achieve a CLEAR consensus (as happened with the blackout vote earlier this week @ wp/en; 4 options, then "vote-deprecation" & a new vote for different options; all within ~48 hours open-to-close -- NOT the community's finest hour).

so how about we try grouping the options logically, in a "tree"?

==== Option 1 ====

geographical re-location to a different legal jurisdiction

this could involve moving the entire wmf, the "world hq", some projects, or just the "main/source" servers ("mirrors" are a separate consideration).

===== Option 1.1 =====

migrate affected material out of the wmf(usa), as well as out of us-jurisdiction

i.e.: http://wikilivres.info

==== Option 2 ====

"regionalization" & related rule-changes @ commons and/or wikimedia-as-a-whole

the core objectives being to:

a) allow "regionalization" -- hosting of files by location of the servers and/or access to files by location of the end-users.

this could involve:

i) (increased) "regionalization-tagging" (for copyright status) of files

ii) access-restrictions based on the location of the end-user

iii) access-restrictions based on the location of the (selected) host-server

b) reduce the copyright barriers to hosting files @ commons (i.e.: apply the copyright rules of the host jurisdiction, drop additional requirements regarding "source-country-status") and/or allow regionally-based decision-&-implementation of rules for this.

==== Option 3 ====

"bend-over-&-take-it"

accept the legal situation in the usa, as-it-stands; modify our collection of materials to ensure compliance with us-law; take no action to preserve items that "require" deletion in the usa

==== Option 4 ====

wait & see, take no immediate action (i.e.: keep the files)

===== Option 4.1 =====

await guidance from the wmf, before deciding how to proceed

===== Option 4.2 =====

respond "reactively" if/when/as legal concerns arise

==== Option 5 ====

just give up & close shop

==== END OF LIST ====

we can (& should!) also take action to seek changes in "intellectual property" law (worldwide), but that is a longer-term & much broader issue, not entirely germane to the immediate situation.

hopefully this helps to "sort-out" out choices here

Lx 121 (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC) (restored AGAIN by me, after being "deprecated" AGAIN by user:dcoetzee)

I don't find this structure terribly useful. I think it's best to stick with proposals that at least one user is actually advocating, as long as they're not getting out of hand. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

hi, please do not censor me! you don't like my proposal, fine. your friend below me doesn't like my proposal, fine. but "collapsing" it, 5 minutes after i've posted it is not appropriate. ESPECIALLY since none of the other proposals are simillarly-collapsed, REGARDLESS of length Lx 121 (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dcoetzee. I find this "tree grouping" more confusing than the flat order above. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please move this to the talk page? This is a discussion about this discussion. --Saibo (Δ) 21:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)