>
> On 10/23/06, Fredrik Josefsson <fred_chessplayer(a)yahoo.se> wrote:
> > On behalf of a user who asked a question on Commons:
> >
> > Question about [[s:en:Template:PD-UN]]
> > <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/en:Template:PD-UN> and
> > its Chinese and French versions hereto. When
> > Wikisource was a multilingual site accepting all
> > languages, it had so many UN Security Council
> > resolutions posted by various users unaware of UN
> > copyright. As the UN Headquarters is subject to the
> > same USA laws, works published there are copyrighted
> > in the same way as works published in the USA.
> >
> > Works published in the USA between 1978 and 1 March
> > 1989 without copyright notices and without subsequent
> > copyright registrations are in the public domain in
> > the USA, but should subsequent copyright registrations
> > be validly made, the works become copyrighted. I would
> > like to ask if these works are acceptable here. This
> > is critical as most, if not all, images at
> > [[:Category:Stamps of United Nations]] may be indeed
> > copyrighted.
> >
> > ----
> >
> > I thought I ask at the mailinglist, see if anyone can
> > provide an answer...
> >
> > / Fred-Chess
>
> This basically seems to be saying that the UN's materials are subject
> to US copyright laws. Which means they don't really fall into a
> special copyright category and should be treated as any other
> copyrighted material (and we probably shouldn't have a PD-UN template,
> which implies that UN material is uniquely PD for any particular
> reason, in the way that works of the U.S. federal government are PD).
>
> The UN seems to consider themselves a regular copyright holder as well
> (http://www.un.org/copyright.htm), which I admit somewhat surprises me
> (I guess they just want the right to control it, since I doubt they
> are trying to turn a profit). In any cases, the reasoning on the
> template looks correct, but all it basically says is "this isn't PD
> unless it is PD for some other reason", which probably means that the
> template is misleading at best for most people.
>
> FF
>
Please explain how the template is probably misleading at best for most
people. The content of [[s:en:Template:PD-UN]] has been based on USA
copyright law and prolonged discussions at English Wikisource when so many
UN Security Council Resolutions have arised the copyright concern. If you
can think of better content, please be more specific. Users outside the USA
must also be aware of the laws in their countries as countries that are party
to <http://www.unesco.org/culture/copyright/html_eng/ucc71ms.pdf> Protocol 2
of the Universal Copyright
Convention<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Copyright_Convention>done
at Paris on 24 July 1971 require copyright protection for works
published for the first time by the United Nations.
Jusjih
On behalf of a user who asked a question on Commons:
Question about [[s:en:Template:PD-UN]]
<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/en:Template:PD-UN> and
its Chinese and French versions hereto. When
Wikisource was a multilingual site accepting all
languages, it had so many UN Security Council
resolutions posted by various users unaware of UN
copyright. As the UN Headquarters is subject to the
same USA laws, works published there are copyrighted
in the same way as works published in the USA.
Works published in the USA between 1978 and 1 March
1989 without copyright notices and without subsequent
copyright registrations are in the public domain in
the USA, but should subsequent copyright registrations
be validly made, the works become copyrighted. I would
like to ask if these works are acceptable here. This
is critical as most, if not all, images at
[[:Category:Stamps of United Nations]] may be indeed
copyrighted.
----
I thought I ask at the mailinglist, see if anyone can
provide an answer...
/ Fred-Chess
>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:04:43 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Fredrik Josefsson <fred_chessplayer(a)yahoo.se>
> Subject: [Commons-l] PD-UN template
> To: Commons-l(a)wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <20061023180443.22932.qmail(a)web23010.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> On behalf of a user who asked a question on Commons:
>
> Question about [[s:en:Template:PD-UN]]
> <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/en:Template:PD-UN> and
> its Chinese and French versions hereto. When
> Wikisource was a multilingual site accepting all
> languages, it had so many UN Security Council
> resolutions posted by various users unaware of UN
> copyright. As the UN Headquarters is subject to the
> same USA laws, works published there are copyrighted
> in the same way as works published in the USA.
>
> Works published in the USA between 1978 and 1 March
> 1989 without copyright notices and without subsequent
> copyright registrations are in the public domain in
> the USA, but should subsequent copyright registrations
> be validly made, the works become copyrighted. I would
> like to ask if these works are acceptable here. This
> is critical as most, if not all, images at
> [[:Category:Stamps of United Nations]] may be indeed
> copyrighted.
>
> ----
>
> I thought I ask at the mailinglist, see if anyone can
> provide an answer...
>
> / Fred-Chess
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:10:02 +0200
> From: David Monniaux <David.Monniaux(a)free.fr>
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] PD-UN template
> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <453D057A.4070908(a)free.fr>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Fredrik Josefsson wrote:
>
> >On behalf of a user who asked a question on Commons:
> >
> >Question about [[s:en:Template:PD-UN]]
> ><http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/en:Template:PD-UN> and
> >its Chinese and French versions hereto. When
> >Wikisource was a multilingual site accepting all
> >languages, it had so many UN Security Council
> >resolutions posted by various users unaware of UN
> >copyright. As the UN Headquarters is subject to the
> >same USA laws
> >
> How so? The headquarters are in extraterritorial territory.
I was the one asking at Commons. Section 7 of the United States Headquarters
Agreement for the United Nations, Public Law
80-357<http://www.un.int/usa/host_hqs.htm>does apply American laws to
the UN Headquarters in New York unless otherwise
provided. This would apply American copyright law there as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#United_States_law says, "Until
the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the lack of a proper
copyright notice would force an otherwise copyrightable work into the public
domain, although for works published between 1978 and 1989, this defect
could be cured by registering the work with the Library of
Congress<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Congress>within 5
years of publication. After 1988, an author's copyright in a work
begins when it is fixed in a tangible form; neither publication nor
registration is required, and a lack of a copyright notice does not place
the work into the public domain."
If Wikipedia is correct, works published in the USA and the UN Headquaters
between 1978 and 1989 with no copyright notice would be in the public domain
in the USA now since much more than 5 years have passed since 1989. This is
why I would like to ask before bringing Template:PD-UN from Wikisource to
Wikimedia Commons. However, we should have a verifiable citation to the
5-year claim.
Jusjih, admin at 8 Wiki sites (Commons, English and Chinese Wikipedia,
Wiktionary, Wikisource)
I personally believe a symphonic (and other musical instrument) sample
library might be a worthwhile acquisition.
They are an necessary ingredient in modern music creation, are
relatively cheap to create (1 million was needed to create the Vienna
Symphonic Library which is the 'top of the line') yet are extremely
expensive to purchase ($4790 for the VSL Complete Orchestral Package
http://www.ilio.com/vienna/index.html ) (Or the East West Quantum Leap
Symphonic Orchestra -
http://www.soundsonline.com/EWQLSO-Platinum-Bundle-pr-EW-155PROB1.html
lists for $4,490.00) Even at the lowest end of the symphonic sample
library offerings (far more limited sampling in both breadth and depth
of instruments; as well as a recording of only a small subset of each
instruments capabilities) - the Garritan Personal Orchestra is 200$
http://www.garritan.com/
Those prices are per seat cost, so a school interested in allowing
each student in a 20 computer class to work on their own orchestration
is looking at nearly 100,000$ in sample library costs which is
obviously cost prohibitive. (Of course I'm sure there must be school
discounts, etc. however how many schools would be willing or able to
afford even a single seat at list price?).
Providing sampling libraries would be a major enabler for the
unleashing of creativity and potential among individuals desiring to
create music across the world. Perhaps doing for music creation what
the printing press did for reading.
Tom M.
Wikimédia France has installed a portal at www.wikitheque.fr (and had
obtained .com and .org in order to prevent squatting).
This portal provides task-oriented directions for finding images and
text content on Commons and Wikisource, with the help of Wikipedia (we
may in the future extend this to friendly third-party sites with libre
content).
Examples of tasks include: I'm looking for a photograph of an animal,
where do I look? I only know the French common name of that species,
what do I do?
The idea is to address the needs of e.g. teachers and schoolchildren
with step-by-step instructions.
This portal is now not much developed, but we aim to make it bigger.
In order to preemptively address a few obvious questions:
* This portal will not provide content; content will all be on other
sites (Commons, Wikisource etc.).
* This portal is not editable as a wiki because there would be
difficulties with that:
** The wiki interface may scare "normal" people - too many buttons.
** We cannot afford vandalism on a portal for welcoming e.g. schoolchildren.
** We might use a "closed" wiki but it's a heavier solution than the
current one.
-- DM
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_day/Poll
POTD: picture of the day (appears in a nice template that people often
add to their talk page, as well as on the main page)
FP: featured pictures
QI: quality images (somewhat akin to 'good articles' on en.wp, but
only for Wikimedian-created works)
Feel free to translate at will (on the poll page).
There is some discussion about it at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_day too.
I personally rather like the fact that POTD is so open, and anyone can
add anything they want whenever they want, including anons. I'm sure
plenty of good FP nominations have come out of POTDs. I would like to
see the creation of an "alternative POTD" process that allows this
ad-hoc contributing to continue. (but doesn't appear on the main page)
If this current poll succeeds, and other people think it's a viable
idea, I will probably set it up.
regards,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise