File talk:Lipsius 013.JPG

 

I agree with Bapti, {{Own}} is not appropriate. Rocket000 (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, this is uploader's own photo, see also discussion at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-08#File:Lipsius 013.JPG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted Rocket000 edit, that edit added some self-evident tautology, and removed some important information. This is the photograph by Alainauzas (not "possible photograph"), likely eligible for copyright, so there is nothing wrong with PD-self tag. I never understand why some people like to replace "self" tags with different "ineligible" tags. Why do this? This doesn't make files more free. And even if the file is ineligible in one country, it's probably eligible for copyright in another. Trycatch (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I dislike false information. Rocket000 (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This information is not more "false", than, for example, own work claim on photograph of a statue or a building. Alainauzas is one of the contributors to this work, and he has full right to claim authorship on his contribution. Trycatch (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

People shouldn't claim others' work as their own, even if it's not copyrighted. "Own work" is for work that is entirely your creation. This is not. Rocket000 (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Try to say that to User:Rama, who claims copyright and authorship for his photos of paintings. But this is not two-dimensional. And now you restored your nonsense that the 16the century author would be unknown. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a battle I'm not willing fight, but I agree that's the same thing. Now, your actions here are kinda strange considering your opinion expressed here... I thought we were on the same page. Now you call it nonsense. Maybe, I was wrong and you were just targeting certain individuals. And yes, the 16the century author is unknown so what's "nonsense" about stating that? Rocket000 (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You are such a coward. And one does not need to be able a scholar in Latin to know who the 16th-century author is. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what? That wasn't me. And all I see is the author's name. Not the illustrator's name. The plain text isn't what I'm talking about. Rocket000 (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not the only one. The illustration is just the printer's mark. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You're not really addressing my comments, so I'll try direct questions... We don't know who the illustrator is; true or false? Does the fact it's a "printer's mark" have any relevance regarding the question of authorship? If so, how? The illustration is not the work of the uploader; true or false? Are you arguing it's ok to take full credit for a derivative work? If so, how does your comments here coincide with what you said about Rama on your talk page? (I mentioned double standards there, and I'm mentioning it here too.) Why does a diff showing something Wknight94 did make me a coward? Rocket000 (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The printer's mark was designed by Plantin and Moretus, so they are authors; the name of the engraver is not clear (maybe something with what looks like "FAE"). As I and several others have written before: this is a photo of a three-dimensinal object, while User:Rama claims copyright and authorship for his photos of two-dimensional paintings. So it is not me who has double standards, it is Commons. You wrote above that you did not want to fight that, and you are not the only one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There is template {{PossiblyPD}}, it may be additionally placed on photographs like Rama's one. Trycatch (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I now understand your view. I wasn't thinking about it as a 3D derivative, but I guess you are right. PD-Art wasn't correct. I think the PD-old/PD-self combination along with naming both authors and dates is suitable as the image involves two works. That's how we normally do it for derivatives. Is the way it is now acceptable? I didn't even know about {{PossiblyPD}}. What's the difference between using that and {{PD-Art}}? We know PD-Art doesn't apply to all countries, but in this case, consensus (and the WMF) have said we follow US law only. Rocket000 (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no difference for us at all, but there is serious difference for reusers. If one want to reuse file, say in the UK, {{PD-art}} would not be helpful license for him/her -- in the UK {{PD-art}} has no difference with {{Fair use}}. {{PossiblyPD}} created for use as addition to other free license templates (as contrasted to PD-art), so reuser can make choice, if PD-art is not ok for him, he can select other license. Trycatch (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but PD-Art says "Please be aware that depending on local laws, re-use of this content may be prohibited or restricted in your jurisdiction." which is kinda the same thing. Why would some files get PossiblyPD while others get PD-art? Rocket000 (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)