Template talk:PD

PD templates

Swept in from the pub

I want to reorganize the PD templates because I think there is unnecessary duplication in some cases. Currently, Category:License tags shows:

• {{PD}} (5 uses)
• {{PD-author}} (18 uses)
• {{PD-creator}} (9 uses)
• {{PD-fed}} (8 uses)
• {{PD-old}} (1 use)
• {{PD-self}} (42 uses)

The first three are effectively the same template but with minor differences. The fourth one (PD-fed) should really be called something like {{PD-USGov}} because "fed" suggests the FBI or the act of being fed. The PD-old template should indicate why something is PD e.g. it is a US work from before 1923. The first, second, third, and sixth ones should offer an optional author parameter in case someone wants to add a name mext to the declaration. I have put this here to see if there are any suggestions or objections before I start tinkering away. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added a use count. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning the author is important at least for EU residents, since the "moral rights" require attribution (there is no way to put works in the public domain), but isn't the author line of the information template the place to put that information?

Then there is a problem with saying "this applies worldwide". Do only such images qualify for use here? Who is going to do the checking? I think the template pages should give some advice on when they can be used. For Commons it is enough that an image is free in the USA, in the "country of origin" and perhaps (there are conflicting guidelines on Commons) some other countries related to the image and the uploading user.

What about the "fed" template? Shouldn't we have a template for any copyright-free governmental works, and handle specifics as a parameter?

--LPfi (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with mentioning the author but creator is the same as author. I’d prefer a generic government PD template as suggested by LPfi but Commons experience tells me that it might be better to have at least two such templates (one US and one for others) because there is so much variation between governments. Green Giant (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as worldwide application, please see c:Template:PD-self for the information that is needed. Checking should be done by any user willing to do so (I would hesitate to suggest a License Review-type group). Green Giant (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

PD-self is less problematic, as there essentially is the European version where you cannot waive your moral rights and the USA version where you truly can put something in the public domain (are there further variants?). The PD-old thing is much more complicated. I think "anybody willing" here does not include anybody who knows that a PD statement applies worldwide. On Commons the templates usually state "in countries where ...", and I think that is the wording also we should use. --LPfi (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think there should be just three PD templates on Wikivoyage:

• {{PD-self}} should be for when an uploader declares their own work to be in the public domain;
• {{PD-author}} should be for other people's work, which the author/creator has put into the public domain;
• {{PD-Gov}} should be for works that are by a specific government, which does not attract copyright by law (this should have a parameter which lets you select the country);

Anything that is PD-old suggests it has fallen out of copyright by virtue of X number of years (50, 60, 70, 100 depending on the jurisdiction) having passed since the author died. These files should really be at Commons. Green Giant (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Over here it is not just governmental works that are free, but decisions by (nearly) any public sector body, so "gov" is not necessarily the right name. The PD-old files may be here in some cases, where they are not deemed to be of interest for Commons (at least suggested DotM banners). And what about PD-1923? --LPfi (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, the reason why DotM banners are hosted locally is not because they were "not deemed to be of interest for Commons", but rather "to prevent them from being overwritten or edited on Commons". The trigger-happiness of some Commons admins with the delete button has caused problems here on more than one occasion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to keep important files like the banners locally. I'm not suggesting moving them, just that the templates should be easier to use. It is confusing to have both a creator template and an author template for example. Green Giant (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

André: that makes more sense, true, as they are very nice images. Giant: the author and creator templates are redundant with each other, but it suffices to choose one. The "this applies worldwide" of PD-old (or the current equivalent implicit statement) is the problematic thing for template users. Otherwise the current wording nicely covers also the PD-gov cases. Parameters at least for pma/1923, and some instructions, should be added – especially as we want to be able to move the images to Commons. --LPfi (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)