Template talk:SIA-no known copyright restrictions

So we're allowing items for personal, non-commercial use, consistent with fair use on Commons now? Oaktree b (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Jumping in 18 months later, but what I think it means is that the Smithsonian Archives has determined, in its infinite wisdom, that it is extremely unlikely that there's a vested copyright interest. They're a very risk averse organization, so I think if there was any credible possibility of copyright infringement, they would refrain from uploading. I think the "consistent with fair use" language is just lawyerly hedging on their part, not meant to reflect Commons' philosophies. Harej (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Some have interpreted COM:PRP to require absolute certainty to allow hosting, but that's a preposterous requirement, it is not available, ever. Rather, the standard for hosting should be the lack of reasonable doubt as to free use. An image released by the SIA under the statement cited has been determined by professionals to be very unlikely to actually have a valid copyright owner who would assert the rights, and, under these conditions, if rights were ever asserted, damage would be non-existent to minimal. Rejecting such material is taking the precautionary principle well beyond reasonable application. There are much greater possibilities with nearly every accepted image on Commons: an uploader might simply lie, for example, about own work. A source may be incorrect. Those are all possible, yet that is not how we operate, we operate on a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, and "reasonable" is decided in context.

By accepting the professional judgement of a reputable institution, Commons can avoid a great deal of contentious and disruptive debate. Only if something is clearly incorrect about that judgment should we do otherwise, and because such a judgment is intrinsically fraught with hazard, it should be carefully and completely discussed. --Abd (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)