Commons talk : Structured data/Modeling/Copyright

edit

faithful reproduction of two-dimensional public domain work of art

countries where faithful reproduction of a 2D work of art do not have additional copyrights

digital representation

0 references

add reference

add value

Which I would like to propose as a way to model {{PD-Art}}. Unfortunately as I mentioned in this bug report Quick Statements does not seem to work for statements with qualifiers. --Jarekt (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Jarekt: back to this old one now that we seem to have a solution for the cc-zero one.

I like this approach and I think this is going to be the winning approach. Just a minor change: digitization (Q843958) is a process, I think we should use digital representation (Q42396623). Do you agree? That would complete the easy case of {{PD-art}}

Next is the slightly harder case of {{Licensed-PD-Art}}. I like the fact that you put it as preferred because that makes the modelling a lot easier. I can just add a second copyright status and add a license, see for example at File:Tiepolo, Giambattista - Le Banquet de Cléopâtre - J 104 - Musée Cognacq-Jay.jpg. We could probably add some qualifiers, but not sure if we should bother. What do you think? Multichill (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am fine with using digital representation (Q42396623), you are right that is better. As for {{Licensed-PD-Art}} I think that one will have to have multiple copyright status statements one for PD case and one for CC, kind of like you did in File:Tiepolo,_Giambattista_-_Le_Banquet_de_Cléopâtre_-_J_104_-_Musée_Cognacq-Jay.jpg. I added qualifiers to that file so now it is:

edit

faithful reproduction of two-dimensional public domain work of art

countries where faithful reproduction of a 2D work of art do not have additional copyrights

digital representation

0 references

add reference

add value

copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder

edit

Creative Commons CC0 License

https://www.parismuseescollections.paris.fr/fr/musee-cognacq-jay/oeuvres/le-banquet-de-cleopatre

digital representation

reference URL

0 references

add reference

add value

The reference URL (P854) should be moved to reference section, once phabricator:T230315 is resolved. I think that we should remove top level copyright license (P275) statement since it is unclear which copyright it goes with. Top lever copyright status (P6216) and copyright license (P275) statements work only when we have "simple" copyright case, but once we have to multiple copyright status (P6216) statements, each for different jurisdiction, author, time period, etc., then each copyright license (P275) has to be paired up with specific copyright status (P6216), the way we developed d:Help:Copyrights. --Jarekt (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for having another look at this. I don't think we need references to model what we're doing now. You're basically duplicating the source field. Anyone who wants to verify the license can have a look at the source, just like now with wikitext. I don't agree with the removing the top level copyright license (P275) statement. This is the license under which it was made available. We choose to override that based on public art, that's why public domain (Q19652) is prominent and you shouldn't make copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder (Q88088423) prominent.

Let's get 95% of the files sorted out before we worry about the last 5%? I'm trying to find a balance between not too complicated and completeness.

I would follow a very basic decision tree: What is copyright status (P6216)?

public domain (Q19652) or copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder (Q88088423), we can do whatever we want! We could have a look if and what the fallback license is
copyrighted (Q50423863), have a look at the license to see what the conditions are

No need to add copyright license (P275) as a qualifier too. Looks redundant and more complicated. Multichill (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Multichill, I was thinking about the reference because on Wikidata a claim like that would require a reference. I agree that most of the time it would overlap with the source and perhaps we would not need it, but sometimes it does not. However I am digressing, so lets stick to 95% of the files and worry about the rest latter. The idea behind using copyright license (P275) as a qualifier is to link it to specific copyright status (P6216) statement, since copyright license (P275) does not make sense when applied to copyright status (P6216)="public domain". In d:Help:Copyrights copyright license (P275) is only used as qualifier. I am OK with using it at the top level, when we have a single copyright status (P6216) statement (probably great majority of the files on Commons), but when we switch to multiple ones we should switch to wikidata model. I do not think we should create the 3rd variant. --Jarekt (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Modelling of {{CC-0}}

Latest comment: 4 years ago61 comments8 people in discussion

Continuing the discussion from User talk:Multichill#copyright status of CC0-Files: How should we model the Copyright (not the license) for {{CC-0}} files. My suggestion would be something like (updated based on discussion):

edit

copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder

0 references

add reference

add value

--Schlurcher (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I would rather have a new item like "put in the public domain by copyright holder" that is more generic so we can use it for other licenses too like {{PD-self}} and {{WTFPL}}. Multichill (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sure, that will do as well. Do we have an item like this already? --Schlurcher (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't able to find it. Probably best to make a new one. We can always merge it. Multichill (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Like this copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder (Q88088423)? --Schlurcher (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

{{CC-0}} should be modeled as:

copyrighted

edit

Creative Commons CC0 License

stated by copyright holder at source website

0 references

add reference

add value

--Jarekt (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Modelling CC-0 as copyrighted (Q50423863) is fundamentally agains the intent of CC-0. Another way is to add the license:

edit

Creative Commons CC0 License

copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder

0 references

add reference

add value

--Schlurcher (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

No. CC0 files are still copyrighted. CC0 is defined as "No Rights Reserved", for public domain there is the Public Domain Mark. [1] --GPSLeo (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

philosophical debate

This is a nice philosophical debate. Something is copyrighted, cc0 is applied and effectively putting it in the public domain. So are we modeling the strict status or the effective status in copyright status (P6216)? Because our aim is re-users I'm leaning towards effective status. Multichill (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we should ask the WMF legal team. They will know if these files are public domain by the CC0 legalcode and the Berne Convention. If the file is not really public domain (Q19652) but also not fully copyrighted (Q50423863) we maybe need a new item for this. Like an item for "declared as public domain" or "no rights reserved" --GPSLeo (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

For institutions this is not clear. A museum should actively label a copyrighted work with a CC0 license in their administration with a right holder. Off course filters in Commons and Google should combine both CC0 and public domain when querying but we shouldn't mix this. In the Netherlands we had several occassions that a government switched licenses and in fact dual licensed their works. We had national archives that switched from CC-BY-SA to CC-BY to CC0, and we have the Dutch Royal House that switched from CC0 to a more restricted form. Off course that is not possible officially, but we should be able to administer those changes with the license property. --Hannolans (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Note that CC0 doesnt wave the moral rights: "Second, the laws of some jurisdictions don't allow authors and copyright owners to waive all of their own rights, such as moral rights" (https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ), so it is only public domain for reproduction, not for all modifications and uses. Note that we are not talking about photographs only, also about music, software, design and buildings. --Hannolans (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'd argue that's where the fallback license kicks in. See my comment below, but with the CC0 you can do all the modifications and uses that you want. If you follow the logic you are arguing for, then if you apply a CC BY in jurisdictions that don't allow for waiving the moral rights (that might include not only attribution but also integrity), then in theory you wouldn't be allowed to modify a work if it has a CC BY because the law says that you can't waive your moral rights, that include the integrity of the work. And this is not the case. If you apply a CC BY then the downstream re-user can most certainly remix the work. And, in any case, the work of modelling shouldn't be to offer an interpretation of what the re-user can or can't do but rather be a descriptive status of the item itself. It's up to the re-user to figure out what he/she is entitled to do with the work. Scann (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Moral rights do accept modifications and exist in copyrighted works. Moral rights is for example that even if a sculpture is CC0 you're not allowed to demolish it, even if you are the owner of that work, without contacting the creator, or edit a speech in such a way that it becomes a hate speech. It is important to have a legal status (copyright status), and a license or waiver that describes what you as a re-user can do with it. I do think there is a difference between European Law and US law regarding PD. --Hannolans (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lastly, CCO does not have to mean that every part of the work is public domain. Within a video the video itself might be CC0 but some music or fragments not. In the CC0-license that is legal. Video platforms have that situation for videos. --Hannolans (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi folks, I'd say that you also check the CC0 PDM comparison chart to understand the differences between both, it's always useful. In terms of what the CC0 is, technically speaking is not fully a license, it's a waiver. But it acts as a "fallback license" in case the waiver can't be fully applied bc of legal restrictions. So in those cases it doesn't matter whether the law of your country says that "moral rights can't be waived", that's when the license kicks in into effect. See more at the CC0 FAQ. Given that, if it's possible, I'd say that the copyright status should be: "waived", and the determination method should be "dedicated to the public domain by the copyright holder". By saying that is "dedicated", we also maintain some of the spirit of the legal code that underlies the CC0, that has a very strong vision around the public interest. Lastly, it doesn't matter if some portions of the content aren't covered by the CC0, for example in the cases of video. You could do a full video using public domain content and put a copyright license to it, and that wouldn't affect the underlying status of the works you're using. In this case, you could lawfully use copyrighted content and then release your whole work under a CC0, with the caveat that "except where otherwise noted, this work is under a CC0". Where otherwise noted = where you're using (c) content. Lastly, works that are under the public domain under a CC0 are different from works that are in the public domain under a certain law (jurisdiction based). The Berne Convention has nothing to do here, since it only establishes minimum terms for protection (per @GPSLeo: comment). Another important aspect is that licenses are irrevocable, per @Hannolans: comment of institutions changing their licensing conditions. If you can get a record that at some point in time they used a less restrictive license and then they decided to change, then your use is lawful, and they can't prevent you from using the work in the terms established by the license. That's basically the reason why Wikimedia Commons can store all those Pixabay images even when Pixabay no longer uses CC licenses. I don't know if this is useful at all in terms of how to model the property, but hope it helps. Scann (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

To my understanding, at least in the Netberlands, the moral rights can't be waved or transferred ('onvervreemdbaar want onlosmakelijk verbonden aan de persoonlijkheid van de auteur of uitvoerend kunstenaar, en diens eer en goede naam.' https://www.muziekenrecht.nl/morele-rechten). It's not that the license then kicks in, our legislation always let's you have the moral rights until your death. This is also in Germany I believe.

But that's a different problem. That's why the CC0 is acting as a fallback license. The reasoning would be the following: "I'm waiving all my rights to the extent possible given by law. However, if the law doesn't allow me to waive all my rights, then I offer you this fallback license", that in practice would work like a CC BY, since following the reasoning that I made above, in some jurisdictions the right of integrity is a crucial part of moral rights, but despite that no-one has ever claimed that CC BY is not applicable. Does it make sense? Scann (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Regarding public domain and CC0 and licensed works: its interesting legally. we can't claim a CC0 to be public domain without checking all the content manually. To my understanding, we should only apply public domain for Commons if all the rights are public domain, whereas CC0 can be applied whe only a part is PD.

No. I think this is incorrect, Hanno. Works can have copyrighted works inside them and still be CC licensed. You don't need to check all the content manually, I don't see why you would do that. Scann (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thast is true for CC0 works, but not true if we convert CC0 to 'public domain' as a copyright status. It we claim 'public domain' we, at least in Commons state that everything in that work is public domain. CC0 is not PD --Hannolans (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

For me it looks like we all would agree if the statement would be: copyright status (P6216) = copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder (Q88088423)? --GPSLeo (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Probably, I'd rather "dedicated" as I said, to keep intact the original spirit of the waiver. Scann (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with copyright status (P6216) = copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder (Q88088423). I have updated the wikidata item according to @Scann: 's comment. The current page suggest that copyright status (P6216) has only two possible values, copyrighted or public domain and "If the file is public domain, it must have appropriate qualifiers to indicate why it's in the public domain (we're still figuring out that part)". Limiting the possible values for copyright status (P6216) has clear benefits compared to using multiple statements without qualifiers, though. --Schlurcher (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

This is the important thing to remember: CC0 is not the "Public Domain". Copyright is not conferred by using alicense; it exists by applicable law upon the creation of the work. What public domain means is that the domain of the applicable law's license has expired and/or the work is not eligible to be copyrighted for another reason, such as having been created by a government entity in the discharge of their normal duties. Since this puts the work outside of the private domain (i.e., copyright), it becomes the public domain.

That said, the CC0 license does not "release" the work to the public domain because you can't waive your rights in that way in most jurisdictions. Some countries, in fact, do not have copyright expiration that are consistent with public domain law, so the CC0 license instead specifically reserves no rights under the license. Go try searching the CCo legal code for the word "domain". It's not there. Instead, you find this: "To the greatest extent permitted by, but not in contravention of, applicable law, Affirmer hereby overtly, fully, permanently, irrevocably and unconditionally waives, abandons, and surrenders all of Affirmer's Copyright and Related Rights and associated claims and causes of action, whether now known or unknown (including existing as well as future claims and causes of action), in the Work...".

From this, it is clear that CC0 work is copyrighted, but all of their rights associated with that copyright are waived. PonyToast (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@PonyToast: So how would you model it? Now we have copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder (Q88088423) which is a subclass of public domain (Q19652). Multichill (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I added a copyrighted (Q50423863) statement and qualifiers to copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder (Q88088423) to model this. --GPSLeo (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bringing here what Sarah Pearson (Legal Counsel at CC) shared in the CC's Slack channel: "Given the purpose and design of CC0, I think it makes sense to describe the status as public domain, and then explain the mechanism (i.e. dedicated to the public domain by the creator). From the perspective of a reuser, CC0 content is designed to operate just like content that is in the public domain for other reasons, for example, if copyright expired. In addition to expired copyrights, I think the public domain also includes works that fall outside the scope of copyright, and works whose authors have relinquished their copyright. You are right that there are some jurisdictions where dedication to the public domain isn't possible, in which case CC0 operates as a license with no conditions. But I wonder how often that applies? My sense is that it is a small number of jurisdictions, but I don't know for sure.". Scann (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well, every country with moral rights, I guess most of the European countries (at least Italy, Germany, France, Netherlands etc). --Hannolans (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you. That's why I initially suggested the following: "Given that, if it's possible, I'd say that the copyright status should be: "waived", and the determination method should be "dedicated to the public domain by the copyright holder"." I don't think it's copyright protected, and it's not public domain either. That's why it should be "waived". Scann (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well, if it is certain that in certain countries it can be waived legally, we could change the status for those countries to public domain. We have probably the same situation for works of the federal government of the united states. Those works are public domain in the us, but copyrighted abroad and in the Netherlands copyright protected but because of article 15b of the national law as governmental material free to re-use without restrictions. --Hannolans (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sweden also have moral rights like those Hannolans are referring to. So even if it is a small number of jurisdictions, it's clearly not universal. Ainali (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

license irrevocability & breaching

I'm adding this new section to discuss this issue, because this is a different problem from the "philosophical debate". --Scann (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

About the license revoking, we have several works deleted her at Commons of the Royal House as they revoked their license. We also had a situation that a public broadcaster revoked their license of CC-BY. We should administer each license seperately with qualifiers like a start and end time and also try to administer the date and link of the license and probably OTRS and so on, and not use the license property itself as a qualifier as we can't apply qualifiers to a qualifier. --Hannolans (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

But that's a different problem: that's Commons admin (and well, the Royal House too) not understanding the CC licenses, which doesn't affect the fact that the CC licenses are indeed irrevocable. Those are two different problems. The license doesn't have "an end date". I'd consider that improper, because licenses can't be revoked, and therefore they don't have an "end date". If anything, the "end date" would be the moment in which the work enters the public domain, not the (wrongful) decision of an institution to remove the CC license logo from the work.--Scann (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

As a follow up, you could potentially have that as a "stated in" that points to a) point in time, b) website/terms of use (with proper link to the wayback machine) and/or c) OTRS permission. Scann (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Something else that worries me here, @Hannolans: , is that you can't override the official interpretation that CC has over its licenses (that are indeed irrevocable) because of the wrongdoings by Commons admins or some institutions. This is not a modelling problem, and it's not up to debate that the licenses aren't revocable. The licenses can't be revoked. Period. Therefore, modelling the information of the licenses as if they could be revoked is going against the way in which CC interprets the licenses, and what the licenses indeed are. Don't try to solve what seems to be an interpretation problem by Commons admins and institutions through a modelling question. This should be part of an integral training on the CC licenses, but you can't add qualifiers to the licenses that aren't part of their intrinsic characteristics.Scann (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I understand that concept, but when they claim later on they are not sure if they are the copyright holder, we use the precaution principle here and revoke the license and remove the work. We also had that with Nowness, they published works of their editors as CC-BY but revoked the license as they said to Commons they don't have all the rights. I am not sure how we should model this, probably with disputed by as we did with Anne Frank, but I'm sure it can't be done if we have the license as a qualifier, we should be able to use qualificers and sources for the license. That is the practical reason I am against having the license itself just as a qualifier--Hannolans (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

So we had a call with @Hannolans: to chat about this. What Hanno is bringing here is a different set of problems. Just to be clear, there are two scenarios here that are different from one another: 1) institution, platform or user decides to remove the CC license; 2) as in the case of Nowness, they didn't have the copyright in the first place to begin with. Examples of scenario one are this video by Nowness, any of the images from Pixabay, (see one example here). Examples of scenario two is this video, where Nowness clearly doesn't have the rights to license a song by Miley Cyrus, so therefore they don't have the rights to apply a CC license anyway. So this applies to all the six CC licenses + CC0, but basically you should have some qualifier that states the current status of the license: "removed", "in force", and maybe "breached", to describe all the different scenarios, with "removed" meaning that the original licensor removed the CC license from the website, but that doesn't change the fact that the work is under a CC license; "in force" to clarify that the license is still valid, and "breached" to signal that there the licensor didn't have all the rights that he/she needed to have in order to license the material. The remaining question is whether you ask for proof of the latter or not, and what happens when institutions might change their mind and make a statement of "breached" even when that's not clearly the case. This should also have a qualifier that says "stated in", the moment of time, and probably a URL to the wayback machine to make sure that there's a record of the license for the moment in which it was posted. Additionally, we might want to make sure to model correctly things such as the statement around Pixabay changing their license or the license change template. Scann (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Traditionally on Wikidata we just adjust rank to "depreciated" and add reason for deprecated rank (P2241). Perhaps we can do the same on Commons? I am not sure SDC team managed to turn on ranks yet, but we should be doing it the same way we would on Wikidata. --Jarekt (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

PD-Self

@Jarekt and GPSLeo: how would you model {{PD-self}}? Multichill (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think this is definitely really public domain (Q19652), as there is no further declaration/license text. But copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder (Q88088423) is also correct. --GPSLeo (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I would use

edit

copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder

0 references

add reference

add value

and possibly add some additional marking that the release was done through {{PD-self}} template on Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

No, it is legalwise not public domain (CC0), there is still a right holder. Off course it is the intention, but the law has no option to put it in the public domain. This will give even more confusion for cultural institutions in their administration as a licence administration and a right holder is still needed in this situation. --Hannolans (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

PD-self is also not public domain as it is not valid in European countries. We only accept it on Commons because in the US it is valid. --Hannolans (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Interesting Jarek. So both {{Cc-0}} and {{PD-self}} are templates to put a copyrighted work in the public domain. {{PD-self}} has a weak legal basis and you opt for public domain (Q19652), but for {{Cc-0}} which has a much stronger legal basis, you opt for copyrighted (Q50423863). @Hannolans: can you please scroll up to the philosophical part and comment on it? Multichill (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think the difference is that if I release image as {{Cc-0}} I am still the copyright holder, but I grant anybody right to do anything with the file. if I release image as {{PD-self}} than I am attempting to perform legal operation declaring myself as no-longer-the-copyright-holder. That operation might not be allowed in some jurisdiction and in general has a weak legal basis. I do not think {{PD-self}} is a license. --Jarekt (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Multichill and Hannolans: , another solution of modeling {{Cc-0}} and {{PD-self}} would be to create some 3rd option in-between public domain copyrighted, maybe "copyrighted, but functionally public domain" or some other phrase like that. Than we can use it for {{Cc-0}} and {{PD-self}}. --Jarekt (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Do you think there is a difference between your suggestion and copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder (Q88088423)? --GPSLeo (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Given that I just made this item in Wikidata, we could change it to read "copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder" I guess --Schlurcher (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder (Q88088423) is fine for {{PD-self}}, but since I do not consider {{Cc-0}} to be technically in PD, adding copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder (Q88088423) to {{Cc-0}} sound like a confusing contradiction.--Jarekt (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Follow up

This died down a bit without a clear solution, so importing just started. We currently have more than 200.000 copyrighted files tagged as public domain. We should probably fix that. Multichill (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Multichill, yes we should fix this. I re-read the language of https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ looking for inspiration, and included some exerts from it:

CC0 "places [works]as completely as possible in the public domain, [] under copyright or database law"
CC0 = “no rights reserved”
CC0 "gives creators a way to waive all their copyright and related rights in their works to the fullest extent allowed by law"
CC0 is " most complete alternative for contributing a work to the public domain"

I guess I agree with @Hannolans: that it is very similar to the language of {{PD-self}} and I now think both cases should be modeled in a very similar way with the only difference being the copyright license (P275). I would be OK with a new item titled "copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder" proposed by Schlurcher, which might be better than my "copyrighted, but functionally public domain". Another phrase could be "copyrighted, released under public domain equivalent license", mirroring Creative Commons CC0 License (Q6938433) which is an instance of (P31) public-domain-equivalent license (Q25047642). --Jarekt (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jarekt, Schlurcher, and Hannolans: sounds like a good plan. I updated copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder (Q88088423) to be used in copyright status (P6216). So for {{Cc-zero}} files we get two statements (I updated File:Audi A4 B8 Heck.jpg as an example):

* copyright status (P6216) -> copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder (Q88088423)

* copyright license (P275) -> Creative Commons CC0 License (Q6938433)

Do you agree about this part? For {{PD-self}} I expect us to use copyright status (P6216) -> copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder (Q88088423), but we should also have something to put in copyright license (P275). I created released into the public domain by the copyright holder (Q98592850) for that. See File:K 125m (2).jpg for an example

What do you think? I think we got a nice solution here. Multichill (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with this solution. --Schlurcher (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

This looks like an elegant solution to me. Ainali (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Multichill I think that works. I am fine with CC-Zero case, but I am still wondering if there is a more elegant solution for modeling PD-self and related PD-user and PD-author licenses. released into the public domain by the copyright holder (Q98592850) is not a license and it is closer to copyright related items we created to add to determination method or standard (P459). But I guess We should have determination method or standard (P459) with PD files and copyright license (P275) with copyrighted files. So maybe this is OK. Should we have some different ways of modeling {{PD-self}}, {{PD-user}}, and {{PD-author}}? Or should copyright status and license be the same and the difference would be in the source. Should we also add the item for the actual template used somewhere? By the way I began to expand Commons:Structured data/Modeling/Copyright to add those models, but I am not done yet. --Jarekt (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jarekt: thanks for sorting this out. I consider CC-Zero now solved and thus have implemented this conslusion into my bot. Regarding, PD-self etc. I will wait for a conclusion. --Schlurcher (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jarekt: {{PD-self}} is a license, just a really crappy home brew one so released into the public domain by the copyright holder (Q98592850) reflects that. Don't forget that in quite a few countries (like mine), it's impossible to release copyright, the only thing you can do is license it. I would use the same item for all these templates because the concept (and the wording on the templates) is the same.

We should probably encourage existing users to switch away from PD-self to CC0 and deprecate it for new uploads like we did with {{GFDL}}. {{Attribution}} is another one of those home brew templates that should probably get the same treatment. Good job on the documentation. Multichill (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think we should retire {{PD-self}} other 2 are harder to retire as they are mostly used to bring to commons images published either on other projects or on the web. I will finish the documentation and alter example images so they acrually can be used as examples. I also think we should also fix the files we currently have with bad license info (as you mentioned in the original post) and fix them. Thanks for reviving this discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm already in the process of adjusting the files identified with the query to the newly aligned model. I will complete this this week and check the query again after some time, when the data refreshed. --Schlurcher (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I also patched up the bot.

I will bring up the PD-self stuff on the village pump. Multichill (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Commons:Village_pump#Moving_away_from_PD-self. Multichill (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

New recordings of PD music

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

How do we model files of music, where the original is in the public domain, and then a new recording is made which is released under a free license? Example. Ainali (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Could you not use applies to part (P518) to give one statement for original work (composition or whatever) and one for the recording? Similar to how {{Copyright information}} (and it's simplified derivatives) works. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

That sounds like a good idea! Ainali (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ainali, I added digital representation of (P6243) Majas visa (Q10575489) and Majas visa's copyright status is indicated on wikidata following concepts in d:Help:Copyrights. This will leave only copyrights related to performance to be modeled on Commons as I did in your example file. --Jarekt (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jarekt: Nice, but it seems like all the bots adds license as a main property rather than a qualifier. Are they doing it the wrong way? Ainali (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ainali, copyright license (P275) is fine when applied to the whole body, when a file has a single copyright statement, which should be majority of "own work" files using {{Information}} template. It does not work in case of more complicated statements with multiple copyright status (P6216) statements. See more at [[Commons_talk:Structured_data/Modeling/Copyright#Modeling_of_{{PD-Art}}]] above. --Jarekt (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Template:Attribution

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

{{Attribution}} is a bit like {{PD-self}} and even worse. Please comment on Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Images requiring attribution. This first needs to be sorted out before any data can be imported. Multichill (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Template:Attribution only license

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

What Qid shall we assign to {{Attribution only license}}? Went ahead and did the rename. Multichill (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Couldn't find one so I create attribution only license (Q98923445). Multichill (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Merge licensing into copyright?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Commons:Structured data/Modeling/Licensing is not active and feels a bit redundant. Merge it into here? Multichill (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, please. --Schlurcher (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Done. Multichill (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

How to model Template:Flickr-no known copyright restrictions?

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I still consider {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} {{PD}} all over again. I doubt we can model this properly. Any suggestions? Multichill (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Multichill, I agree that {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} is a excuse for sloppy homework by the GLAM institutions that use it, or instance of (P31) cover your ass (Q5179210), but sometimes it is the best we can get. I would model it as:

no known copyright restrictions

edit

determined by GLAM institution and stated at its website

0 references

add reference

add value

--Jarekt (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jarekt: Shouldn't it be subclass of (P279) cover your ass (Q5179210)? ;-)

Not sure about determined by GLAM institution and stated at its website (Q61848113) because it's stated on Flickr, not on their website I think? Maybe something like "stated at source"? Or something in that direction? Multichill (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are right. We did have determined by GLAM institution and stated at its website for a while, so I used it. My thinking was that I want to emphasize "determined by GLAM institution" part as I do not want people uploding files they determined that have no known copyright restrictions. Since "no known copyright restrictions" seem to be only associated with flickr commons we could create item for "determined by GLAM institution and stated at flickr commons" or more general "determined by GLAM institution and stated at the source". --Jarekt (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

{ {self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} { {Free screenshot|GPL}}

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:0 A. D. Ptolemäer Alpha 23 (Ken Wood).png uses {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}{{Free screenshot|GPL}} license, where {{Free screenshot|GPL}} applies to what is on the screen and {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} applies to choosing which screenshot to save. I was thinking about modeling that with:

source of file

0 A.D.

edit

original creation by uploader

content of the screen

0 references

add reference

edit

capturing of the screenshoot

0 references

add reference

add value

copyrighted

edit

GNU General Public License, version 2.0 or later

some item linking it to {{Free screenshot}}

content of the screen

0 references

add reference

copyrighted

edit

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

capturing of the screenshoot

0 references

add reference

add value

Does that sound about right. Some Q-items would need to be created or found. @Multichill and Schlurcher: What do you guys think? --Jarekt (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Time to start filling PD-art?

Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

We had some previous discussions about PD-art. Maybe time to start filling some of the easy cases where we already link to the right Wikidata item? Take for example File:Edouard Manet - Le Chemin de fer - Google Art Project.jpg. Here we could add:

edit

faithful reproduction of two-dimensional public domain work of art

countries where faithful reproduction of a 2D work of art do not have additional copyrights

item inherits statement from

The Railway

0 references

add reference

add value

Here I use item inherits statement from (P5852) to make the link. Other options to use are inferred from (P3452), based on (P144) & digital representation of (P6243) but I think this property is the most suitable. This makes a nice link to d:Q1212098#P6216. This would be a first iteration of adding PD-art in SDC. More complicated cases can be handled in later iterations. @Jarekt: what do you think? I think this will fit in well with Module:License. Multichill (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Multichill how about:

edit

faithful reproduction of two-dimensional public domain work of art

countries where faithful reproduction of a 2D work of art do not have additional copyrights

digitization

0 references

add reference

item inherits statement from

edit

The Railway

work of art

0 references

add reference

add value

Use of applies to part (P518) (and sometimes applies to jurisdiction) to create separate copyright statements for separate aspects of the license is more clear and easier for Module:License to understand. Also more in line with d:Help:Copyrights. --Jarekt (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi everyone! I like the approach above. I'd say splitting the data in two statements makes sense. I think it has huge potential to make adding artwork license tags for a lot of files that don't have any much easier. How could we move this forward? --Marsupium (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Freedom of Panorama

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was looking at the current status of the copyright modeling page, and I notice it doesn't mention Freedom of Panorama yet? I am working on public art a lot (both Wikidata and SDC) and I could apply FoP-related SDC statements on Commons quite often. I could start doing this in batch.

We do have copyright exemption (P7152) for a while already, with a few examples listed there. Do we agree on the modeling in those examples and if so, can it be added to the modeling page?

copyright exemption

freedom of panorama

edit

Netherlands