Template talk:Not-free-US-FOP
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Is this template really necessary? If the subject is in the US, it fails the US-FOP rules, and is therefore not free and should be deleted. On the other hand, if it's in a country where FOP is acceptable (e.g. the UK) it can be tagged with {{FoP-UK}}. I suggest adding a disclaimer to the FoP templates, similar to that in {{PD-old-75}}, to say that FoP may not be valid in all countries. An optimist on the run! 14:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- As noted on my talk page, the use of this template was one of the primary outcomes of this RfC, and there was consensus for adding them in this Village pump thread. This is fallout from the DMCA takedowns of European sculptures in public places conducted by the WMF recently, see Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2012/11#DMCA_Take-Down. The problem is basically that works that are copyrighted in other nations are usually also copyrighted in the US, and if suit was brought in a US court, it's not clear which country's FOP law would be applied. Works that are not free in the US cannot be hosted here, and we're trying to track the scope of this problem and warn US content reusers. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I see. I've added a link to the RfC, as I'm sure I'm not the only one who was unaware of it, and wondered why their images were being tagged. Can we make the wording less threatening? At present, as far as I can tell, there are no suggestions that these images should be deleted, However, the wording Files bearing this tag may be deleted in the future seems to imply the opposite. The word "may" should be better emphasised at least, or replaced with "might possibly"). My preference though would be to get rid of that paragraph altogether, and just leave the first line and two bullet points. An optimist on the run! 18:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Files bearing this tag would be deleted if the artist lodged a DMCA takedown notice with the WMF, if the Oldenburg situation gives any indication. There was some discussion of preemptively deleting such files, especially in the context of allowing US-FoP but not source-country-FoP images, but there wasn't much support for it. I'd agree the template's final paragraph could be better written. --Avenue (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I see. I've added a link to the RfC, as I'm sure I'm not the only one who was unaware of it, and wondered why their images were being tagged. Can we make the wording less threatening? At present, as far as I can tell, there are no suggestions that these images should be deleted, However, the wording Files bearing this tag may be deleted in the future seems to imply the opposite. The word "may" should be better emphasised at least, or replaced with "might possibly"). My preference though would be to get rid of that paragraph altogether, and just leave the first line and two bullet points. An optimist on the run! 18:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Is this tag also apply to such files?[edit]
That some sculptures are public domain in original country, but still copyrighted in US due to lack of FOP in US for em, are depicted? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226 yes, as long as the works are not yet in public domain in the United States. The only restriction on the use of this template is on image files of monuments of countries with no FoP for monuments. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)