Template talk:GODL-India

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

See archived discussions[edit]

National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy - Government of India[edit]

Please see the discussion at VPC too. Jee 14:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the lights of Government Open Data License - India, I think we need a new template (like {{GODL-India}}) to allow to host "all shareable non-sensitive data available either in digital or analog forms but generated using public funds by various agencies of the Government of India" with "proper attribution" in Commons. Pinging Yann, RP88, Clindberg and Shyamal for opinion. (It seems files like this will not fall under this license (EdictGov-India); but seems a good candidate for the new license (GODL-India).) Jee 06:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. It seems a good idea. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just created the template. Please check for any corrections and/or improvement. Jee 05:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(discussion moved from Template talk:EdictGov-India for convenience )

Not an acceptable license?[edit]

@Jkadavoor: Commons:Licensing lists a number of criteria for acceptable licenses, one of them is "The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable." On https://data.gov.in/government-open-data-license-india section 7 it seems that the data provider can terminate the license. Multichill (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Multichill for the comment. While looking on "2. Definitions:" we can see "b . "Data Provider(s)" means person(s) publishing and providing the data under this license." and "d . "Licensor" means any data provider(s) that has the authority to offer the data concerned under the terms of this license." In "7 . Termination" we see "c . Upon determination by the data provider(s) that a specific data set has been published that includes one or multiple kinds of data listed in section 6 of this document, the data provider(s) may terminate the applicability of the license for that data, and this termination will have the effect of revocation of all rights provided under Section 3 of this license, including but not limited to immediate retraction of the data set concerned from public access."
From my understanding it only means that any mistake made by the "Data Provider(s)" is not a valid reason to claim the data is "GODL-India" licensed. Upon determination by the data provider(s) that the license is not valid (per 6 . Exemptions); the data provider(s) may terminate the applicability of the license for that data. This is applicable to any license we are using here.
In fact, the licensor is the Government of India and the license is automatically granted for any data if the criteria mentioned in the license is satisfied, even if it is not available online. What the "Data Provider(s)" are doing is to assess the data and mark whether it meets the criteria prior to publishing. Data that should not be published under this license is mentioned section 8(1) here.
Hope this will clear the doubts. Jee 03:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Flickr users regularly changed their licenses and Commons solved the problem using the review process where someone (or the transfer tool) examined the license on the date when it was imported. I believe the revocation clause is unlikely to be used much by the Indian government and should not be a cause of undue concern. Shyamal L. (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of contents in all Government of India sites[edit]

We already have templates like {{Attribution-PIB-India}}, {{Attribution-IAF}} which are based on a brief copyright notice. Earlier all those sites were have a "all rights reserved" notice as [seen here. Now most sites changed the copyright notice and I see no reason to create separate templates for each sites. The underlying policy behind this change is National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy – Government of India introduced in February 2012. Now we have the "Government Open Data License - India" introduced in March 2017 which overrides any site bases brief notices. So I think contents from any gov.in or .nic.in sites can be uploaded in Commons using this "GODL-India" instead of creating separate templates for each sites. Jee 05:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK for me. Yann (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Link to archived discussion in VPC. Jee 04:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broken[edit]

Yann, the addition of a separate license review banner has really mucked up the review category. As far as I can tell every single image currently in Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India have already been reviewed (720 files). Also, the script that LRs use isn't compatible with the type of banner system you set up. There is an alternative that can be done for things like this. The instructions (which would have to be modified a little) can be found here: Commons:How to create a license reviewing template. --Majora (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not. There has to be a better way to handle this though. For now and in the future. Doing this with that banner is ok for smaller sites like Pixabay but for the Indian Government that balloons to thousands of images. --Majora (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a [license] review for trusted sites (like sites owned by a government). So I think it can be kept optional one that not a must. Jee 03:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is still an external site. And there are instances where photos posted to the Indian Naval site are actually derivative works that would not be covered by this. I have DR'ed a few of them that I can remember. I actually think I have found a solution if an admin wouldn't mind modifying the LR script. At least for the one that Rillke created I found where it has to be changed. You would just have to add this template along with the replacement value (/confirmed) to the .replace section. --Majora (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"There are instances where photos posted to the Indian Navy site are actually derivative works that would not be covered by this." Yes, that is the issue; not the license. We need to delete such cases occasionally. Here what we need is to review whether the content is available in a Government of India site. If true, it has GODL-India license unless in some few cases where the content is owned by third-parties. This is a bit different from generic license review where we need to review the license mentioned on the source. So a wording like "who confirmed that it was available on that website on that date" is enough. Jee 03:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually now that Rillke is presumed retired perhaps I can port over his script to my user space and keep up with the maintenance of it. I wouldn't mind doing that. --Majora (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; he retired. Glad to see if someone can take care of those scripts/tools. Jee 03:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Test case with LR script with GODL-India functionality can be found here: File:Interaction of Vice Admiral Ajendra Bahadur Singh, Chief of Staff, WNC with Israeli National Defence College delegation.jpg. Is that acceptable, Jkadavoor? --Majora (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine. Jee 04:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Like I said, I wouldn't mind taking over the maintenance of this script. There are quite a few other things that have to be updated (Panoramioreview and all related categories have been deleted for example). The issue now would be how to move people seamlessly to the new version. Obviously an admin would have to do this since it would be editing someone else's .js space. I believe if you were to just replace everything with importScript('User:Majora/LicenseReview.js'); that would work. --Majora (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I installed your script and tested here. Works well; thanks! Jee 04:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Majora, the script is not working if attribution is also mentioned as in File:CY1 2004.jpg or URL is mentioned as in File:CY1 2006.jpg. Jee 07:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, Jkadavoor. I wasn't aware that there could be another parameter in there. I will edit the script, test, and let you know when it is ready to go for that purpose. --Majora (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done That should do it. Tested with both parameters and no parameters. If you find any other bugs please let me know. --Majora (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Works well! Jee 01:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Majora and Jkadavoor: Thanks for looking into this. It was a poor attempt by me to add a license review to this template. Yes, these files need a license review: the source websites change a lot, and many sources for these files are broken. It is still not very clear to which images this license applies (see thread on COM:VPC). Regards, Yann (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Military insignia[edit]

Military insignias cannot be used under GODL-India as per the license text. However due to the move from {{Indian navy}} license to GODL-India, a lot of ship and squadron emblems are now tagged with GODL-India. This would include all images under the Category:Emblems of the Indian Navy, but there might be others too. Shouldn't these be moved back to the Indian Navy CC-BY 2.5 license? —Gazoth (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think they must be deleted as little chances for them to have a free license. Jee 02:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is OTRS permission for Indian Navy images. See {{Indian navy}} --Majora (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; but it is from a website administrator and not all trust it as fully valid (from Yann's comment earlier). I don't have OTRS access now; some one should re-evaluate it to confirm whether it is applicable to contents that explicitly excluded in GODL. Jee 02:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelist[edit]

Hi, I requested adding *.nic.in to the upload whitelist: phab:T197944. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: *.gov.in is often used interchangeably with *.nic.in. For example, PIB's gov.in and nic.in domains lead to the same website. If the websites have HTTPS, they usually choose one and the other gives you a certificate error. For example, DRDO's nic.in website gives you a cert error, but the gov.in one doesn't, while it is the reverse for Indian Navy (nic.in, gov.in). —Gazoth (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These 2 domains have been added to the whitelist, so it should be possible to import directly images from the Indian government. This is however restricted to users with some rights. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PIB batch upload[edit]

@Yann and Jkadavoor: I'm planning to batch upload all images from PIB to Commons, which roughly totals to 129,000 images. The script is in fairly good shape and I only need to add a feature to keep a record of duplicates to tag Category:Files from narendramodiofficial Flickr stream images before taking it to COM:BRFA. How should license reviews be handled? Since this is a script-based upload, all the images are guaranteed to be present on PIB. License reviews will only need to check for third party images published by PIB such as File:Flight deck of INS Vikramaditya.jpg. Does this require a manual review of all the new uploads?

On a tangential note, the uploaded images will have file names and description similar to this page. I have created {{ID-PIB}} for the source field which will auto add images to Category:Files published by Press Information Bureau or one of its subcategories. If you have any suggestions for improvements or categorization, let me know. —Gazoth (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manual human review for such a large number of files will be difficult. Hope Zhuyifei1999 can give some suggestions. Jee 02:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Approved bots may review their own uploads --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that should solve this issue. —Gazoth (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological Survey of India[edit]

Hi, Are works by the Archaeological Survey of India acceptable under {{GODL-India}}? This potentially concerns a lot of files. See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/08#Archaeological Survey of India. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, It is GODL -- Naveenpf (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

States implemented NDSAP or similar policies[edit]

Some state governments such as Sikkim, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Odisha, Assam, etc. have created their own policy on the lines of NDSAP.

-- Naveenpf (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This is good news. We probably need a new template, isn't? Yann (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read all those policies; but failed to see a valid license terms in any of them. Hope they will make a statement that GODL or a similar license is applicable to those policies. Jee 13:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Table and Map Data[edit]

Is GODL compatible for table and map data ? example New York City Weather and New York City Map -- Naveenpf (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Naveenpf: Depends on where you're sourcing the data from. If the data is sourced from https://data.gov.in or http://www.imd.gov.in or any other Government of India-owned and maintained website, sure. If not, probably no. —Gazoth (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking if tabluar and map data from Government of India-owned websites can be used in "Data:" namedspace, the answer is probably no. It looks like Commons requires the data to be licensed under CC0, which is effectively the same as public domain dedication. GODL-India license is not a public domain dedication license and is incompatible with CC0. —Gazoth (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gazoth: Thanks for clarification. Why map and table data requires pd license? Any particular reason ? -- Naveenpf (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Naveenpf: I don't know the reasoning behind it. It might be for the purpose of inter-compatibility with Wikidata, which also uses a CC0 license. It was mentioned by a Wikimedia employee in the announcement email. —Gazoth (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stamps of India[edit]

Hello, I have a small query. Under GODL-India would stamps also fall under free data policy. The information present here needs to be updated in that case. I have a good archive of Indian stamps and I wish to upload them. @Yann and Naveenpf: -Abhinav619 (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IANAL, but most probably yes. India Post is operated by the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications, Government of India, as shown here. The Indian Post Office Act, 1898 is the relevant law. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anywhere that the 1957 copyright act provisions for government works has been revoked by GODL. They are normally noted in newer acts. A second, maybe more important point, is the GODL details some exceptions in Section 6d whereby "Data subject to other intellectual property rights" is exempt, which taken with the copyright statement on the India Post website, may well mean that GODL does not apply to stamps but that may just be copyfraud. The The Indian Post Office Act, 1898 makes not mention of copyright. BTW, the GODL template link to the Right to Information Act, 2005 is wrong and should be changed to http://rti.gov.in/webactrti.htm but I can't see a way to edit it. Yann, maybe you can make that correction. I'm inclined to request clarification whether GODL applies to all India Post Office works. Ww2censor (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The GODL doesn't revoke anything. It adds a free license to existing copyright. Again, as I said above, IANAL but so far there have been an agreement that the GODL applies retroactively to all works by the government of India. Stamps are obviously government works, so I don't see why it would not apply to them. The Indian Post Office Act, 1898, is relevant here only about the status of the stamps emitter, the Department of Posts. We can compare this case to the Archaeological Survey of India, another department of the Indian government, which was discussed earlier (see 3 sections above). Regards, Yann (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indian posts official website if we locate to Home > Stamps > Use of Stamp images' we get a PDF file. The PDF file reads.

Guidelines on the usage of images of Postage Stamps 1) Issuing a Postage stamp is the Sovereign Privilege of Department of Posts. As such, any use of image of Postage Stamps by any individual/Publisher/organisation shall require prior permission of Department of Posts. i) The requests for image of Postage stamps to be used for a purpose other than the commercial, such as autobiographies/memoires of eminent personalities, text books, literature for promotion of philately etc. shall be decided by Department of Posts on case-to case basis, subject to fulfilment of these guidelines. The requests for image of Postage Stamps to be used for commercial purpose, which gives substantial pecuniary benefit or any direct benefit to the individual/organisation, shall be decided on case-to-case basis. For this purpose, a committee may be constituted with the approval of Secretary (P) comprising officers from Philately Division, BD&M Directorate and Finance Wing to decide the suitability and rates for such proposals. 2. While using the images of the stamps in any book/publication/research paper, the publisher/author shall add a disclaimer in the foreword to the effect that the views expressed in the book/publication/research paper are entirely his own and not of the Department of Posts, Government of India and in case of any controversy or legal problem, the Department of Posts will have no legal responsibility in this respect. 3. An Undertaking stating that no anti-national/ anti-social/anti-religious/seditious material is used in the book/publication/research paper should be submitted to the Department of Posts while asking for permission to use images of Postage Stamps. 4. Department of Posts should be properly acknowledged for granting permission to use the images of the postage stamps and information related to the subject. 5. The size of the stamp to be given will be larger or smaller than the existing size of Postage Stamps in accordance with the rules.-- Using OCR.

This even doesn't sounds like a fair use. Official procedures should be followed to obtain permission from the department. This maybe because the copyright holder of the images used in the postcard might be different from The Government of India. I don't think GODL-INDIA is applicable to these images.

Even other official website (https://www.indiapost.gov.in) copyright policy has no indication and doesn't gives permission for use of the content without permission. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 10:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for this information. This is not as simple as that, and it is quite confusing. The GOD license is supposed to apply retroactively to all works by the gouvernment of India. For example, it was found that it applies to all works from the Archaeological Survey of India, whatever copyright they claim. But it doesn't apply to Doordarshan, which operates under a different rule. I think we need more informed opinions. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkadavoor, Naveenpf, and Gazoth: Any opinions? Yann (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also see this this discussion: User talk:Materialscientist#Images of stamp. I have emailed the Indian copyright office and we shall see what they say if they even respond. Ww2censor (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NDSAP, similar to other open data initiatives, follows a "open by default" policy. There are three conditions under which data would not be licensable under GODL-India—data falling under "sensitive" or "restricted" categories, data classified under "negative" list by a government department, and data that falls under one of the seven exemptions in GODL-India license. The stamps would not be under "sensitive" or "restricted" categories, if that were the case they wouldn't be available to the public in the first place. There are no requirements for classification of data under negative list, so it is possible that stamps fall under Department of Posts' negative list. There is no way for us to verify this, as negative lists are not public. It is also possible, although I would consider it quite unlikely, that Department of Posts holds other rights such as trademarks over the stamps excluding copyright. If it does, then we cannot use the stamps per the exemption 6(d) in GODL-India. Finally, if the Department of Posts licensed artwork from third parties instead creating it themselves, then GODL-India would not be applicable. —Gazoth (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#How_stamps_in_Category:Unreviewed_photos_of_GODL-India_should_be_reviewed? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can the user site assume GODL?[edit]

Lots of files, including images and books, have been uploaded here under the GODL-India template. Current trend seems to be that, editors can assume the existence of GODL if the item is sourced from a Govt website and the file matches, in the uploader's opinion, criteria suitable for GODL. But can a user site like Wikimedia Commons assume the existence of GODL when the Govt source site did not expressly license the item under GODL?

Let's take a closer look at the rules.

1. Paragraph 3 of the GODL notification specifies that the license is for data sets published under NDSAP and through the OGD Platform. This means that the data needs to be published in https://data.gov.in website, which is the OGD platform, for this license to be applicable.

2. Section 2(b) of the GODL notification expressly provides for a license by the Govt data provider: "Data Provider(s)" means person(s) publishing and providing the data under this license.

3. As per Section 6(b), this license is not applicable for Data that the data provider(s) is not authorized to license, that is data that is non-shareable and/or sensitive.

Sl. Nos. 2 and 3 rules out any assumption of this license by the user site when not expressly given by the data provider; there is no supercession clause that the nature of data (i.e., that fits in with Section 3) can override this requirement of license from the data provider.

4. Section 5 provides that attribution must specify Published under [Name of License]. So, how are we assuming GODL for files which were not published under this license?

5. Section 12(h) of the NDSAP notification provides that data and metadata under this license will be uploaded in data.gov.in website. So, how are we assuming this license for files from other sites?

6. Files under this license are available in the data.gov.in catalog (https://data.gov.in/catalogs); where is the documentation for applicability of this license for files not present in those catalogs?

7. Some states have published their data policies; their data are also uploaded in their respective subdomains of the data.gov.in site. As per Section 12(a) of the Odisha State Data Policy 2015, All State Government Departments will store their datasets at State Data Centre as a backup storage. This is the state's subdomain: https://odisha.data.gov.in.

8. NDSAP does apply to all data generated with public funds as per Section 5 of the NDSAP. But those data are needed to be classified first into Open Access, Registered Access and Restricted Access as per Section 8, by taking into consideration the various laws of the country as per Section 10. This classification is done by respective departments under overall monitoring of the national oversight committee, as per Section 7. Data of state governments are also classified in this way, under monitoring of state level steering commitees (see, for example, Section 12(k) of the Odisha state data policy: The SDSC will be the final authority to decide the classification of data into open, registered and restricted categories, apart from declaration of any non-sharable (negative) data.)

This is an elaborate exercise, only after which, the GODL license is assigned for the Open Access category.

Therefore, we need to decide whether Wikimedia Commons is a competent entity to assign GODL license to files not expressly published under this license; or we should use it only for files published under it. Hrishikes (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood the paragraph 3 of GODL-India notification. The creation of GODL-India license was driven by a need for a formal license for datasets on data.gov.in, but the license text does not restrict itself only to data.gov.in. Section 3 of the notification makes it clear and this is also reflected in this article published in The Wire, which says The scope of license applies to all data being published under NDSAP; and also data published through data.gov.in.
NDSAP uses a negative list method, so any data published by a department that is under GoI (which would bring it under the scope of GODL-India) and under the scope of NDSAP should be licensable under GODL-India. The fact that the data published is accessible to the public without registration and payment makes it clear that it is not under Registered or Restricted Access categories. —Gazoth (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing NDSAP with GODL. The scope of NDSAP does extend to all data generated with public funds, of whatever access category. GODL applies only to Open Access category. You have not given any reference that Section 3 has an overriding effect on Sections 1, 2 and 5. All sections have equal power, without any overriding effect on one another. Therefore, only scope is not sufficient. The data need to be published in the OGD platform and the license should come from the data provider. Other open access data are licensible under GODL, sure, but licensible and licensed are not the same thing. The scope of Indian passport extends to me, but the scope does not prove that the passport has been issued to me. Similarly, a data being licensible under GODL does not prove that it has already been licensed; nor does it prove that Wikimedia Commons is the competent authority to issue the license. If you think otherwise, please provide suitable reference from the concerned notifications or any amendments (if any) thereof. Hrishikes (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gazoth here. The point you mentioned above is just about the background why the license is created. Although NDSAP is formulated in 2012 allowing most works owned by the GOI for a free use, a clear license terms was not set. GODL is released to solve this loophole. OGD platform is for making easy access of the data; nowhere in the NDSAP or GODL the scope of freely available data is limited to those published in OGD platform. And GODL is clear "3. Permissible Use of Data: Following the mandate of the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP) of Government of India that applies to all shareable non-sensitive data available either in digital or analog forms but generated using public funds by various agencies of the Government of India, and subject to the conditions listed under section 4 and 7 of this document, all users are provided a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, adapt, publish (either in original, or in adapted and/or derivative forms), translate, display, add value, and create derivative works (including products and services), for all lawful commercial and non-commercial purposes, and for the duration of existence of such rights over the data or information." There is no condition in section 4 or 7 that the data should be available in OGD platform first. Jee 02:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then let us have a closer look at Sections 4 and 7. Section 4(a) states about attribution: The user must acknowledge the provider, source, and license of data by explicitly publishing the attribution statement. This is explained in detail in Section 5. The template given in that section includes Published under [Name of License]. As per the template, the data has to be published under GODL license; the license cannot be assumed. Subsections c, d, e of Section 4 refers to data provider. Section 2(b) defines data provider: "Data Provider(s)" means person(s) publishing and providing the data under this license. So any entity not publishing the data under GODL license is not a data provider for the purpose of this license, as per this definition. Sites other than data.gov.in do not publish under GODL expressly, so data taken from those other sites cannot be relicensed here under GODL. Section 7 deals with termination of the license. As death pre-supposes birth, similarly, provision of termination rules pre-supposes initial publication under this license. As for data.gov.in, that matter has been specified (very clearly) in the Implementation section (Section 12) of the NDSAP notification. You are looking only at Section 3 of the GODL notification, leaving out the other provisions. Section 3 describes the scope. It indicates the situation as it ideally should be (i.e., all non-sensitive Govt-generated data published in the OGD platform under GODL license), not as it currently is. This is a gradual transition, as outlined in Section 12 of the NDSAP notification. In future, all open access data will fit into this scheme, but that day has not yet come. Section 3 has no provision of overriding over the other sections. So it must be reconciled with the other sections and should not be lifted in isolation and given primacy. Hrishikes (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"In future, all open access data will fit into this scheme, but that day has not yet come." My understanding is different. For me, the moment (10th February, 2017), Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology published the GODL notification in the Gazette of India, all data mentioned under section 3 became free to reuse. OGD platform is just a platform to share such data in an easily accessible way. If the license is applicable only for data published there, then the license can be as simple as "Hereby the GOI provide all users a license to use all data published in OGD platform all lawful commercial and non-commercial purposes." And they can instruct the data providers what data have to published in OGD platform. But here the license already well explains what data is actually free and not without adding any condition that it should be published in OGD platform first. In future, all data may be available in OGD platform too; but people need not wait for it. Jee 07:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion in your understanding arises because of not considering the boundary of power between the executive and the legislative. The Ministry of Electronics & IT is the nodal agency, not the implementing agency. So it can formulate a policy and ask other departments to release their works under GODL. But one Ministry cannot trespass into the territories of others and stand-release the publications of other Ministries / Departments by issuing an executive order. An act of parliament is required for this, either an amendment of the Copyright Act or a new Act. Not considering the limit of executive jurisdiction has resulted into this mass upload under GODL.

I am working in a GoI department and frequently have to participate in multi-departmental national projects. So I understand this system from personal experience. In all such projects, there is a nodal agency which formulates the policy, directs the implementing agencies to act accordingly, and monitors the progress of the work. A nodal agency will implement only that portion of the project which is directly under its purview. For other portions, the nodal agency passes directions to the concerned departments. The Department of Science and Technology (DST) is the nodal agency of NDSAP. So they formulated the policy scope in Section 5 of the NDSAP notification and passed instructions to the implementing agencies in Section 12. The Ministry of Electronics & IT, the nodal agency of GODL, formulated the policy scope in Sectìon 3 of the GODL notification. No separate section for implementation was required, because that aspect was well-covered in the NDSAP notification. But the role of implementing agencies was hinted by definition of data-provider and the format of the attribution template. Scope statement and implementation are different. Such a multi-departmental scope spectrum cannot be auto-implemented without intervention by the Parliament. Hrishikes (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NDSAP is approved by the Union Cabinet and it was they who appointed Ministry of Electronics & IT to formulate the license. Then how the scope of license will change from "The National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy will apply to all data and information created, generated, collected and achieved using public funds provided by Government of India directly or through authorised agencies by various Ministries / Departments/ Organisations/ Agencies and Autonomous bodies" to data published only at OGD platform? Jee 13:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are again confusing between policy and implementation. A basic principle needs to be kept in mind, that, copyright can be released, under any given free license, only by the copyright-holder. When, in wiki projects, we use templates like EdictGov-India, GODL-India, etc., it is easy to think that all these copyrights are held by the Government of India, so copyright-holder is one and the same. That is the external perspective (and valid in case of EdictGov). But internally, from the perspective of the Government, it is not so. Each department has legal power over its properties, including copyright and other rights. We may think that a land belonging to the BSF and a land belonging to the Railways are similar, in the sense that both are owned by the Government of India. But if BSF takes over a Railway land for building their campus, that will be either on lease or purchase (book value transaction, but still purchase). So if the Ministry of Electronics & IT is to release the copyright of all Govt works, at the outset, copyright of all works resting with all departments have to be legally transferred to that Ministry. Otherwise, how can the Ministry release the copyright of works that they don't own? Except the Parliament or a Court, no entity, not even the Union Cabinet, can override the rights of copyright-holders. NDSAP and GODL notifications are both policies. Implementation has to be done by the concerned copyright-holder departments. No blanket release of copyright is legally tenable except if done by the Parliament. We need to keep these aspects in mind when interpreting a Government notification. Hrishikes (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The permission for free use is given by the Union Cabinet; not Ministry of Electronics & IT. They only formulated a license to avoid the ambitiousness of the license terms as explicitly asked by the Union Cabinet. Various ministries already started adding a free license in their websites even before GODL is released. PIB also added a free license. We had used it earlier; but many of us raised a concern about the vagueness of the short block of text they used. That's why we decided to use GODL instead of it as it is more clear. Also note that the Prime Minister and many others started sharing media with a free license which are owned by the government. Here also GODL is far better than the license they used as the content is free anyway per NDSAP. To summarize, here we only tried to use a better license which was issued by the Union Cabinet/Parliament of India than the one used by individual websites or individuals. Jee 02:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply point-wise below.

1. No such license was issued by the Union Cabinet/Parliament of India. And the flickr.com image of the PM is under cc-by-sa-2.0, not NDSAP. Your comments like the content is free anyway per NDSAP and The permission for free use is given by the Union Cabinet; not Ministry of Electronics & IT is from not reading the notifications thoroughly and confusing scope with implementation. The Union Cabinet is an approving authority for proposals by Ministries; they never directly issue anything for public consumption.

2. The Government system goes through multiple steps, involving approval by different authorities, to arrive at a decision. That is internal. If there is a Gazette Notification on the topic, then that is the Government's public and legal stand. So a Gazette notification will get primacy. As per Section 12(c) of the NDSAP notification, the DIT was appointed as the nodal agency for bringing out guidelines for implementation of NDSAP and vide Section 12(l), the DIT was given the mandate for creating a Coordination Committee for implementation of NDSAP. Accordingly, the DIT issued the Implentation Guidelines in 2014 (https://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP_Implementation_Guidelines_2.2.pdf) and GODL notification in 2017. Appointment of the DIT through NDSAP was mentioned in Section 1 of the GODL notification: The NDSAP identified the Department of Electronics & Information Technology (DeitY) as the nodal department for the implementation of the policy through National Informatics Centre, while the Department of Science and Technology continues to be the nodal department on policy matters.

3. The implementation procedure is given very specifically in Section 5.0 of the Implementation Guidelines:

5.0 NDSAP Implementation in Ministries/Departments/States

In order to implement NDSAP, the Ministries/Departments of Government of India have to undertake the following activities:

a. Nominate Data Controller

b. Data Controllers in turn Nominate Data Contributors

c. Setup NDSAP Cell

d. Identify Datasets

e. Publish Catalogs and Resources (Datasets/Apps) on OGD Platform India

f. Prepare Negative List

g. Create Action Plan for regular release of datasets on the OGD Platform India

h. Monitor and Manage the Open Data Programme of the Department

From the above, it should be very clear that implementation is to be made by concerned data-originator departments, data need to be published in the OGD platform and listed in the catalogs (https://data.gov.in/catalogs) for GODL license. There is no ambiguity here.

4. OGD platform is specifically identified with data.gov.in website in Section 4.0 of the Implementation Guidelines.

5. Data formats are specified in Section 3.2 of the Implementation Guidelines:

3.2 Data Formats

NDSAP recommends that data has to be published in open format. It should be machine readable. Though there are many formats suitable to different category of data. Based on current analysis of data formats prevalent in Government it is proposed that data should be published in any of the following formats:

  • CSV (Comma separated Values)
  • XLS (spread sheet- Excel)
  • ODS (Open Document Formats for Spreadsheet)
  • XML (Extensive Markup Language)
  • RDF (Resources Description Framework)
  • KML (Keyhole Markup Language used for Maps)
  • GML (Geography Markup Language)
  • RSS/ATOM (Fast changing data e.g. hourly/daily)

Tim Berners-Lee had classified data into single star to five star categories based on formats for data. Please refer to Annexure II.

This means that other formats of data, including analog, although envisaged in the policy, are not currently covered. So, published books, postal stamps etc. are not GODL at present.

6. Please do not confuse theory and practical again and again. The theory of NDSAP/GODL envisages all government data within this scheme. One year was given for complete implementation (Section 3.1 of Implementation Guidelines). Naturally, Government's one year is equivalent to common people's 10 years or more. So, after one decade or more, we may expect all Indian Govt. works under GODL. Quoting the scope statement again and again is not going to change this.

7. Now about other free licences used in other Government sites. Those licenses have no name. They should not be equated with a Gazette-notified license like GODL. At present, GODL is specifically for data published in data.gov.in, in specific formats, and listed in the catalogs. I have demonstrated this with plenty of references above. Other free licenses can be accommodated here by creating some new template. Hrishikes (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
JPEG is not mentioned in your list above. So you say that pictures are not covered under GODL? Nor are PNG, videos, etc.? Regards, Yann (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All data, including images and videos, are covered within scope, but implementation has not reached that part. The GODL notification, while specifying the appropriate open formats, refers to this section of the Implementation Guidelines, in Footnote 3. Hrishikes (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think you are wrong about the scope of the implementation guidelines. It is clear from the meaning of the 3.2 section. It says NDSAP recommends that data has to be published in open format. Since images, videos, and most documents formats (PDF, etc.) are not mentioned, it seems quite obvious that these guidelines are not about any of these documents. This is about data, not about documents. Formats cannot be decided by each department, it would lead to chaos.
I could agree that all documents are not yet released under a free license, but if it were true, what you say above would mean that almost nothing is yet published under under GODL, since none of the file formats used for images and other documents are included. From this, I deduce that these guidelines are not about the release of documents into GODL. It is even clearer that examples of data covered by these guidelines are mentioned in section 3.1.
Maps, images are explicitly covered by the GODL (section 2 Definitions) and NDSAP (section 2.1). Regards, Yann (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever NDSAP recommends is true about NDSAP, isn't it? GODL is the license specifically meant for items published through NDSAP. See the very heading of GODL notification. Other than within the framework of NDSAP, GODL has no separate existence. The GODL notification refers to Version 2.2 of the Implementation Guidelines. So it can be surmised that a later version is not yet released. Other than this version of the Implementation Guidelines, no other implementation module exists for GODL. However, the data must be present in the OGD catalogs for GODL to be applicable, so when additional formats become allowed, we can expect such files to become available in the catalogs. The definition of data is broad-based to cater for future needs, so that the notification won't need frequent amendments with addition of new formats in new versions of the Implementation Guidelines (notice that the definition of data in GODL 2017 was lifted from NDSAP 2012 without much change; so this definition is being kept more or less static, whereas implementation guidelines is dynamic, reaching succesive versions within a short time). But the current version of the module must be kept in mind while attempting interpretation. Finally, documents cannot be differentiated from data in this case. The full form of GODL is Government Open Data License. If you differentiate documents from data, then you will need a Document License, isn't it? Hrishikes (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
these are recommended formats. it can be any human readable or machine readable format. for example NRSC release data in WMS format https://data.gov.in/catalog/bhuvan-applications. SOI gives a restricted access to open series maps in pdf. http://soinakshe.uk.gov.in/. SOI is under DST who formulated the policy. -- Naveenpf (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addition of formats is a dynamic thing. DIT itself added pdf files, like GODL & NDASP notifications, in data.gov.in. But the item needs to be present in data.gov.in. But machine readability has been stressed in the rules. So, to prove that it can be any human readable or machine readable format, you need to cite more references. Hrishikes (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the section 4 of Implementation guidelines. "The objective of this policy is to facilitate the access to Government of India owned shareable data and information in both human readable and machine readable forms through a network" --Naveenpf (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Naveenpf: That is the original NDSAP, attached to the guidelines as Annexure I. See Annexure III, a later document:
5. Machine readability
Machines can handle certain kinds of inputs much better than others. For example, hand written notes on paper are very difficult for machines to process. Scanning text via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) results in many matching and formatting errors. Information shared in the widely used PDF format, for example, is very difficult for machines to parse. Thus, information should be stored in widely used file formats that easily lend themselves to machine processing. (When other factors necessitate the use of difficult to parse formats, data should also be available in machine friendly formats.) These files should be accompanied by documentation related to the format and how to use it in relation to the data.
Also see Section 2.0 of the Implementation Guidelines:
NDSAP aims to provide an enabling provision and platform for proactive and open access to the data generated by various Government of India entities. The objective of this policy is to facilitate access to Government of India owned shareable data (along with its usage information) in machine readable form through a wide area network all over the country in a periodically updatable manner, within the framework of various related policies, acts and rules of Government of India, thereby permitting a wider accessibility and usage by public.
As for the term "recommended", that is officialese. When used by the nodal agency, "recommended" becomes "mandatory" for the contributors. Hrishikes (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see that as a requirement. Where did you see that the document must be data.gov.in? Again it doesn't make sense: obviously if all documents are potentially under GODL, they can't be copied to that website. That would duplicate terabytes of files. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See clause e of Section 5.0 of Implementation Guidelines. Also see details in Section 6.0:

6.0 Publishing & Management of Resources (Datasets/Apps)
Contribution of datasets/apps is by login into a simple web based Dataset Management System through http://data.gov.in. Resources to be contributed under Catalogs are processed through a predefined workflow, ensuring compliance with government policies. Data Controllers nominated by government ministries or department are authorized to publish datasets in open format on OGD Platform.

Moreover, in answer to Naveenpf, wms format is mentioned along with other apps formats in page 44 (answer A2) of Implementation Guidelines. Hrishikes (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Hrishikes is very knowledgeable, analytical and has fully appreciated the rampant misuse of the GODL-India template on this website. OTH, Editor Yann is trying to drive a square peg through a round hole. SinghIsFxing (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not make such disparaging comment. At the time, Indian people told me that GODL applies as I explained above. I requested a formal legal inquiry by a lawyer, which never came. I still think such an inquiry would be useful to settle the issue. Yann (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am a lawyer in India, specialising in IPR and cyberlaw. SinghIsFxing (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know.
Can we come back to the issue at hand?
First, the discussion above is 4 years old, and a lot of things may have changed since then. Is this the case?
Hrishikes has interesting arguments, but I am not alone saying that his interpretation is too restrictive. I agree that many users apply GODL where it shouldn't be, but we need to find an agreement. And how do we create an easy guideline for the GODL? Yann (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We start from the basic document Hrishikes is using, ie. the Implementation Guidelines for NDSAP. By this document all the datasets were to be uploaded by end 2014 and updated regularly. The clear meaning of this is that unless and until the data publisher explicitly releases the data by incorporation within a published OpenData dataset, it is not covered under the NDSAP /GODL. It goes without saying that any legal document has to be read in its entirety and not cherry picked by extracting a specific paragraph and ignoring the rest of the framework. It is also pertinent that access to the data will additionally be governed by terms of the Right to Information Act 2005, which specifically precludes commercial usage (exemption 8(1)(d)) without consent of affected interests. The portal DATA.GOV.IN is fully functional and has a working search engine. The dataset / open access documents can be downloaded from DATA.GOV.In only after stating the purpose of use and providing the user details like email and mobile number etc, ie. anonymous downloads are not allowed. SinghIsFxing (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broad deletion request[edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/Media in Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India. Yann (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of data from Loksabha, Rajyasbha and Supreme Court websites are covered under GODL licence ?[edit]

Hi,

I am primarily planning on using the images of the MPs and the judges from the websites from the Loksabha, Rajyasabha and Supreme Court. I would like to confirm if the GODL template and the NDSAP 2012 is applicable on these websites or not.

All copyrights are reserved with the Lok Sabha Secretariat. The material listed may be reproduced without formal permission for the purposes of non-commercial research, private study and for criticism, review and news reporting provided that the material is appropriately attributed. For any other re-use of the material you are required to seek permission by sending a mail to us.Under Section 2 (k) of the Copyright Act (No. 14 1975), the copyright for the reproduction of any material from the debates and ancillary publications vests with the Lok Sabha Secretariat. A member desirous of reproducing any material from the Lok Sabha Debates or even his own speeches is required to seek formal permission from the Speaker giving specific details of the matter to be reproduced. The copyright matters are examined by the Editorial Branch.

All copyrights are reserved with the Rajya Sabha Secretariat. The material posted on the website may be reproduced without formal permission for the purposes of non-commercial research, private study,review and news reporting provided that the material is appropriately attributed. However, the material has to be reproduced accurately and not to be used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. The permissions to reproduce this material shall not extend to any material which is identified as being copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned.

Please take note that all three are websites hosted on the nic.in or .gov.in portals. So I understood them to be covered by the GODL notification. However my uploaded images using the GODL licence tag got deleted.

So please answer my two questions :

  1. Are they covered under GODL notification ?
  2. If these are not covered under GODL, could anybody please also suggest a way for me to use these images from these websites for the articles on Wikipedia.

Regards, --Politicoindian (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright notices on individual websites may be outdated and GODL should cover content under Government of India (GoI). However, Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and the Supreme Court probably do not have to follow GoI directives as they are not under GoI. There is a separation of powers between executive, legislature and judiciary, which means that the power that executive (GoI) has over legislature and judiciary is usually explicitly codified and is not implicit. This is a grey area and I would recommend not uploading content from these websites. —Gazoth (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia allows fair use, so any content that meets w:WP:NFCC can be uploaded to English Wikipedia (not Commons) as a low resolution image. —Gazoth (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
File:Gautam_Gambhir_-_LS_MP.jpg seems to have passed scrutiny after the GODL-India template was created. Can I assume that files from [1] are now allowed? MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding link to above image's deletion request. —Sarvatra (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know this as well. Need to request undeletion for this file. —Sarvatra (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some expert opinion[edit]

Hello, I know a couple of people who are not Wikimedians, but lawyers or researchers who either worked on GODL (when GODL was in the process they reviewed the first draft or worked in some other capacity), or may be expert in copyright and related topics. Now, I can't ask them to write comments on Commons or Meta. But I can email them "specific questions". If I file RTI, or try to contact the related department, there also I need a list of specific questions. So please let me know if it helps? Note: this thread is only for listing questions. Apologies if this post does not help. Regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some questions:
    • Is GODL valid if originally used outside of data.gov.in?
    • Is GODL valid for data formats outside #3.2 of Implementation Guidelines?
    • Is #3.2 of Imp. Guidelines actually being bypassed?
    • Is Implementation Guidelines mandatory or "best practice"?
    • Is GODL assumable by re-users for any Govt work found outside the OGD platform?
    • Are works found in Lok Sabha and other legislative/judicial sites assumable under GODL?

Hrishikes (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tito Dutta Any Response from the RTI? -- Eatcha (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Titodutta: I just want to know if the images put up by armed forces on indianarmy.nic.in, indianairforce.nic.in, indiannavy.nic.in, and indiancoastguard.gov.in are covered under GODL-India? Thanks. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 07:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sarvatra, I have found this template and a link on File:Kargil_war.jpg, Link -> [2] it appears to me that they can be used. DBigXrayᗙ 07:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray: Like Yann said here, the images can be used (air force too [3]), but the question is if GODL-India applies here or not. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 07:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I created {{Indian Army}}. It may be better to use that template until the issue with the GODL is resolved. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indian Army is already nominated for deletion, for being incompatible with Wikimedia-commons. HIAS (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avenues to seek official clarification.[edit]

Due to contradictions between GODL-India and copyright statements found on various Indian government department websites like ISRO.gov.in and Postagestamps.gov.in we keep getting deletion nominations.

To settle this issue is there a way to ask Indian government departments directly to either change these copyright statements or to clarify their stance on it whether GODL-India applies on them at all? I have only came up with this Centralized Public Grievance Redress And Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) and it appears if request is worded not to sound like a suggestion but a genuine grievance it might be worth a shot to send applications individually to each department we are most concerned with. Ohsin (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following websites of ISRO centres have copyright statements that are favourable and in alignment with GODL India, unfortunately ISRO.gov.in still sports boiler plate text.

Material featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission except where specifically stated otherwise. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. However, the deemed permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site, which is explicitly identified as being copyright of a third party as well as to materials contained in the hyper linked sites. Authorization to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned.

Ohsin (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify these copyright statements are from this document "Guidelines for Indian Government Apps & Websites" https://web.guidelines.gov.in/ Ohsin (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been entirely happy to consider material that must be "reproduced accurately" as being compatible with our requirement that freely licensed files must allow derivative works to be made. If a derivative work is made it is no longer accurate to the original file. Ww2censor (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For ISRO.gov.in, the matter appears to be somewhat resolved as they have updated their website's copyright policy and it is much less restrictive from previous policy statement. Now it says:
Material featured on this site belongs to the DOS/ISRO and the same may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context.
Wherever the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged
However, the permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site, which is explicitly identified as being the copyright of a third party.Authorisation to reproduce such material would obtained from the copyright holders concerned.
Statement on accurate reproduction of material, and its context of use being dictated is still problematic though. Terms like 'misleading' and 'derogatory' appear to be intentionally vague to keep some power over use of material.
This odd phrasing found on Indian Govt. websites is due this official document titled 'Guidelines for Indian Government Websites' [PDF] (Page 43) which provides this as boilerplate text to be used as Copyright statement. Ohsin (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Government Museums[edit]

Can someone confirm if Museum Images such as those, which are copyrighted by Indian Government Museums, and hosted on the http://museumsofindia.gov.in/ site fall under GODL licensing? These Museums are Government organizations, and attached to the Ministry of Culture. Thank you for confirmation पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Until such time as the metadata of each image is uploaded to DATA.GOV.IN as Open Source data by the data provider, the existing copyright policy of the client website under the GIGW would continue to apply. SinghIsFxing (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What website did this license can be applicable?[edit]

I am looking for help!
Ask your question below. You can also look at the Contents, ask at the Help desk, or ask users on the #wikimedia-commons webchat IRC channel.
Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please replace this template with {{Helped}}

I have many irrelevant issues of this license. Are PIB file allowed by Gazothbot only for uploading files, and not us...? If I upload in a correct format, some admins will delete it due to some reason which can be understood by seeing my talk page. Can you please tell me the correct guidelines of using it...other that PIB files, what other government websites I can use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTP1233 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests (again)[edit]

Many GODL-related deletion requests have been created recently; apparently one user has had enough of this. At Commons:Deletion requests/File:President Kovind presented Nari Shakti Puraskar to Jodhaiya Bai Baiga.jpg, Victuallers says that it’s not a good idea to nominate 11 000+ files for deletion; it’s better to look for ways to save them.

I don’t really understand what the issue is (looking at supposedly valid examples from the category GODL-India doesn’t help), but it sounds like something that needs more people looking at it. Brianjd (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India is the next group, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aero india logo 2021.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:14 Tejas lined up on the runway.jpg were recently deleted and Commons:Deletion requests/File:16corpsinsignia.jpg has chance to be kept as Template:PD-shape - review is welcomed. After next requests will be processed I plan to continue with large-scale deletion requests (based on decisions taken in closing) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Akk7a for one more group, one of several. In general it appears that vast majority of now 13 000 images in this category qualifies for similar deletion requests. Not sure whether I will have enough time for that but as I nearly used one of such dubious images (apparently bogusly licensed) I plan to spend some effort on reviewing images in this category Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:GODL-India&oldid=745390095"