Template talk:Flickr-public domain mark
 | This template was nominated for deletion on 26 April 2021 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
Remove PD-Author from list of suggested replacements?
[edit]In light of Josve05a's closing summary at Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images and related DRs (1, 2), I plan on removing the {{PD-Author}} from the list of suggested replacements inside the gray disclosure box. Thoughts? —RP88 (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- @RP88: That seems like a most sensical plan forward. You have my support for that change. Josve05a (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
No license since
[edit]Josve05a, why did you remove the No license since template from the "include only" portion of this template, but leave a {{No license since}} in the "no include" portion? —RP88 (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- @RP88: I edited the /subst template as well. As the template was coded it didn't add the image to the category Category:Media without a license, which it does (should do) now if tagges with the "subst:Flickr-public domain mark/subst". Josve05a (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't mind the change, I was just wondering why the change was incomplete. You only removed it from the portion of the template that gets included on the file pages but left it in the portion that is only displayed when it is not included. —RP88 (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) It was a brute-fix. If you can code better, please do! Josve05a (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Since if it is added using the /subst-tag it will add the no permission-template as it should, that's why I left it visable in the template. Josve05a (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- OK I removed it, but then saw your note and undid my change. —RP88 (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't mind the change, I was just wondering why the change was incomplete. You only removed it from the portion of the template that gets included on the file pages but left it in the portion that is only displayed when it is not included. —RP88 (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Text update
[edit]The text of the template should be updated to match the warning text of the documentation, which is clearer about why we cannot accept the PD mark as is. czar 21:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
How can Flickr users make license clear?
[edit]This Flickr photo for example is by a locally fairly well known photographer and Flickr user who has released his work into the public domain. Yet it seems Wikimedia prohibits using it? What could be done by the Flickr user &/or on this end to make this photo usable on Commons? Puzzled, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- The user can use the other PD releases, such as CC0. Flickr also has another PD release that isn't the "PD Mark", I believe. The PD Mark template page explains what PD conditions the Mark license is missing (for Commons use) czar 21:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- The text of PDM, which is just a mark, not a license, is "This work has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights." (emphasis copied). "Identified" imply that the publisher do not hold copyright to the work, and publish the work under good faith that the work is in public domain, hence identification. If the publisher is the copyright holder, please publish it under CC0, an actual license that indicates that is is the copyright holder releasing the work. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- complete nonsense = public domain does not mean public domain. i guess i will not be using flickr2commons for these. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 23:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Slowking4 that we seem to follow to narrow policy on images using PDM. To me if we are quite sure that the uploader is the author (with at least the same certainty as for uploads to Commons) and the uploder "identified" their work as public domain, than it should be good enough to us. At the moment I think we are rejecting and deleting a lot of good PD, for reasons that few understand. --Jarekt (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Agree completely. It looks to me like the photographer uploader shared their work as public domain, no ambiguity whatsoever. If case like this is against "policy", it seems to me that current policy is sloppy and should be improved. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- while i understand that a few cases of flickr washing leave a bad taste in the mouth, it is no reason to blanket reject photos, of new flickr uploaders, who are unaware of the sharp elbows here. a maintenance category for human curation would be nice, but you would need to build a team to curate. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- We often upload pictures when the photographer explicitly says it's in the public domain (and nothing else), it should be the same here. Most people on Flickr don't know what "CC Zero" means and choose "Public domain mark" because they see "Public domain". --Thibaut120094 (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- while i understand that a few cases of flickr washing leave a bad taste in the mouth, it is no reason to blanket reject photos, of new flickr uploaders, who are unaware of the sharp elbows here. a maintenance category for human curation would be nice, but you would need to build a team to curate. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Agree completely. It looks to me like the photographer uploader shared their work as public domain, no ambiguity whatsoever. If case like this is against "policy", it seems to me that current policy is sloppy and should be improved. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Slowking4 that we seem to follow to narrow policy on images using PDM. To me if we are quite sure that the uploader is the author (with at least the same certainty as for uploads to Commons) and the uploder "identified" their work as public domain, than it should be good enough to us. At the moment I think we are rejecting and deleting a lot of good PD, for reasons that few understand. --Jarekt (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- complete nonsense = public domain does not mean public domain. i guess i will not be using flickr2commons for these. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 23:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- The text of PDM, which is just a mark, not a license, is "This work has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights." (emphasis copied). "Identified" imply that the publisher do not hold copyright to the work, and publish the work under good faith that the work is in public domain, hence identification. If the publisher is the copyright holder, please publish it under CC0, an actual license that indicates that is is the copyright holder releasing the work. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion
[edit]I encountered this template today and took a bit to wrap my head around it. I would suggest one addition to make it crystal clear why "PD" (not CC0) on flickr doesn't work: Unlike CC0 or the other Creative Commons licenses, the Public Domain Mark is not a legal instrument; there is no accompanying legal code or agreement, and a Flickr user cannot grant their own works into the public domain via this Public Domain mark. Instead, the Public Domain Mark is a tool that allows anyone to mark a work that they believe to be free of known copyright restrictions. Bold is what I'm suggesting to be added or some variant of that. --Masem (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)