Template talk:PD-self

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Necessary?[edit]

It seems to me that this template is subsumed by Template:PD-user, which is more informative. Are there any good arguments for a continued need for the present template? --MarkSweep 00:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to be swayed by arguments for combining them; as you say, the distinction is not great. The other can be used by anyone tagging submissions, even if they were not the creator themselves, so long as they have evidence that the creator did want the submission to be public domain. This one can only be used by Users who are also creators, who are tagging their own images. I do think there may be some small advantage in separating the two, as far as breaking down into categories the workload of those who may be checking the validity of image copyright tags in the future.
Not committed to preserving this one, which was created to fill a hole in existing PD tags -- I don't see any problem with using PD-user (which was created a month later) instead -- just explaining my reasoning and adding my two cents. Catherine\talk 03:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interwiki link to vi:[edit]

Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:

<noinclude>[[vi:Tiêu bản:PD-self]]</noinclude>

Thanks.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Done RN 08:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone?[edit]

The word anyone should be replaced with any entity, or something similar. Anyone implies a person, and doesn't include a corporation, government, organization, or other entity. Also, this should at least be semi protected, rather than fully protected. -Mulder416 21:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit done. RN 08:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

free license?[edit]

So, since this licensing effectively provides both the source and licensing requirements for images, it can be put onto any image and without proof to the contrary — it would stand? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Can a work be released by the author?[edit]

Can someone please explain how this works? As I understood copyright law in the U.S., post-Berne (and many other countries, I am lead to understand), there is no statutory mechanism to waive copyright. The public domain consists of those works that have had their copyrights removed (e.g. by expiring) or were not eligible for copyright in the first place (e.g. works of the U.S. Government). This template therefore has no legal meaning, and renders the image copyrighted and unlicensed. Please, if you are a copyright lawyer, feel free to correct me on this.

For context, here is a quote from Public domain:

Although the only part of the act that does mention "public domain" does not speak to whether authors have the right to dedicate their work to the public domain, the remainder of the committee report does not say that they intended copyright should be an indestructible form of property. Rather the language speaks to getting rid of formalities in order to comply with Berne (non-compliance had become a severe impediment in trade negotiations) and making registration and marking optional, but encouraged. A fair reading is that the Berne Act did not intend to take away author's right to dedicate works to the public domain, which they had (by default) under the 1976 Act.

Hopefully that clarifies the problem. -Harmil 21:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would a person copyright a file, only to release it to the public domain? Shouldn't it just be "creator of the file" releases to the public domain? I'm not to good with this topic, so could someone clarify that for me? --haha169 (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
All intellectual property (except in special circumstances like the works of the US federal government) is copyrighted by default. If you draw a picture, take a photograph or write a piece of music, etc, that work is already copyrighted the moment it is created, and be default, the creator of the work is the copyright owner. So you can't add copyright to anything, only release the copyright. --Mosmof (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit[edit]

See Template:PD-self/Proposed. To allow sorting to work in the image category. Peter O. (Talk) 14:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --  Netsnipe  ►  17:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Iwiki[edit]

Please consider adding a link to fr:Modèle:Domaine public perso. Thank you. 88.160.247.46 19:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add Ru-Wiki

[[ru:Шаблон:PD-self]]

--Alex Spade 19:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

YesY Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

and [[is:Snið:PD-Eigin]] thanks --Steinninn 06:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Rich Farmbrough, 12:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC).

Unless such conditions are required -- then what?[edit]

First off, in what jurisdictions are conditions required? And what if they are? If we are going to go to the trouble of putting in this awkward sub-sub-condition, then we ought to round it out with whatever (hopefully inoperative) conditions are necessary. ("Not valid in the year 2000"? I don't know.) 75.18.200.11 06:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems for Author[edit]

Will author have problems if his work cause damage?

Could one bring author to court if his grandpa died of heart-attack looking at this image?

+[edit]

{{editprotected}} {{free media}} --Random832 01:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I had to look elsewhere to figure out what you were asking for, but it's done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

İnterwiki[edit]

az:Şablon:İM-öz--Uannis 20:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected request[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please place {{tfd|PD-self}} on the template page - nominating this for deprecation/deletion in favor of {{PD-user}}. Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 00:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI - nom is here. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 03:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected template[edit]

{{editprotect}} Please add {{pp-template|small=yes}}. Thanks. Rocket000 21:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"the copyright holder of this work"[edit]

Would some consunsus (?spelling?) be able to determine if the should have the term "the copyright holder of this work" with the actual copyright holder.

For example:

OR


Public domain

I, SpecialWindler (the copyright holder of this work), hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.
In case this is not legally possible,
I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

Making the {{{1|}}} or {{{author|}}} parameter or similar to correspond with this wouldn't be hard.

Change the syntax from

''I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the '''[[w:public domain|public domain]]'''.  This applies worldwide.''<br/> In case this is not legally possible,<br/>

to

I, {{#if:{{{1|}}}|[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] (}}the copyright holder of this work{{#if:{{{1|}}}|)}}, hereby release it into the public domain.  This applies worldwide.
In case this is not legally possible,

Any comments/objections.  The Windler talk  22:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. -- Tkgd2007 (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It would only be an optinal, and wouldn't affect any use of the templates already.  The Windler talk  06:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Imbox standardization[edit]

{{imbox
| type      = license
| image     = [[Image:PD-icon.svg|52px|Public domain]]
| text      = 
''I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the '''[[w:public domain|public domain]]'''.  This applies worldwide.''<br/>
In case this is not legally possible,<br/>
''I grant any entity the right to use this work '''for any purpose''', without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.''
}}{{image other 
| [[Category:User-created public domain images|{{PAGENAME}}]] 
}}{{free media}}<noinclude>

{{pp-template|small=yes}}
{{Documentation}}
<!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! -->
</noinclude>

Kelly hi! 01:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

YesY Done. I see that CapitalR has done the update. --David Göthberg (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Red link[edit]

The "public domain" link points towards W:public domain when it should point to WP:public domain. This needs to be fixed. Darkshark0159 (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. There is a red link plague sweeping Wikipedia right now. It's fine. Darkshark0159 (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

A pretty bold assertion to make without justification.[edit]

This tag ought to include a mandatory field in which the submitter describes how the image was made, or if they were not the author themselves, who they purchased the copyright from.

It's all to easy -- and all too common -- for lackadaisical and careless submitters to upload a photo they don't at all own the rights to, even if they ignorantly think they do (they drew a box on a copyrighted image and call it "their work" for example), and slap {{PD-Self}} on it.

Abuse of PD-self (as well as other PD and copylefty tags too, to be sure) is a liability hole for the project. Requiring PD-Self tag users to state the origin of the image would have multiple results: 1. they don't use PD-Self because they can't answer the question, 2. they include an indication of origin that betrays the image's real ownership, leading to correction or IFD, or 3. they don't provide one, leading to IFD unless (a good) one is added, as is already the routine for FU without a FUR.

Keith D. Tyler 19:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a liability hole for the project because there are broad exemptions for projects like the wikipedia which have user contributed content (like youtube- same thing)- once they get notified by the copyright holder they can take it down without penalty. The hole is for the uploader; they can be sued.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Copy to commons[edit]

Can we add the {{copy to commons}} template to this so that all images with this license are flagged for migration to commons? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Better to add {{Commons encouraged}} in the following wording as it allows an opt-out:

<includeonly>{{CommonsEncouraged|works under this type of licence|commons={{{commons|}}}}}</includeonly>

But in general , support the idea for auto-tagging for Commons move :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It was added but then rolled back :-( Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} There should definitely be a {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template on each instance of PD-self. Can an admin add this (again)? Logan Talk Contributions 01:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. Of files tagged with {{copy to commons}} you expect them to be checked. Some of the files don't have suitable copyright information and shouldn't be moved to Commons. multichill (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Request disabled. Please continue to discuss. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Multichill. There should only be a "MTC" on files that have been checked. If a link is wanted we could perhaps add a link "Click here [auto link to CommonsHelper] to copy file to Commons IF the file is ready to move.". But not a normal "MTC". --MGA73 (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Self-published work[edit]

Could someone add [[Category:Self-published work|{{PAGENAME}}]] to this template so the images will up in Category:Self-published work ? See {{GFDL-self}} for an example. multichill (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done; please amend the documentation to reflect the change. billinghurst sDrewth 09:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wording[edit]

Wouldn't changing "In case ..." to "Unless ..." be a little more clearer? -- œ 07:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it would reverse the meaning. I have changed it to "if". Rich Farmbrough, 12:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC).

Moving free media tag[edit]

In the sandbox version,I've made a minor change so that 'free' images of a Non-free subjects (and thus not suitable for Commons) are not categorised with entirely free media.

It would be appreciated if this minor change, was rolled into the main template at some point. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Well done on spotting this! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed "no Commons" docs[edit]

I fixed the "no Commons" docs. no Commons=no is actually treated the same as no Commons=yes or no Commons=anything. To get the false behavior, it needs to be empty or omitted. The behavior could be changed to match the old docs (e.g. using {{yesno}}, but I decided to document the actual behavior for now.

{{PD-self|no Commons=no}} is a double negative, so it might not be ideal to support anyway. Superm401 - Talk 06:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)