Re: [WikiEN-l] Images that are PD in their country of origin

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:59, Cary Bass <cary(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: Hi Cary, most of the image people I've checked with say that images on the Commons are supposed to be PD in their country of origin *and* in the U.S. Although there are images on the Commons that are PD in their country of origin but *not* in the U.S., they usually carry a tag that places the PD status in doubt and may be proposed for deletion. This means we can't use them on WP. Look at this image for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Refugees_from_Lydda.jpg Palestinian refugees in the British Mandate of Palestine during the exodus from their homes after Israeli troops moved in, July 1948, photographer unknown, believed to be from, or working on behalf of, the British War Office. First publication date not known, but I do know it had been published by 1957. It's PD in Israel, which now governs part of that land. It's PD in Jordan, which governs the other part. 99.9 percent certain it's PD in the UK, which governed the land at the time. But not clearly PD in the U.S. It has therefore been proposed for deletion from the Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Refugees_from_Lydda.jpg To use it on WP, I have to claim fair use, which means I'm expected to deliberately reduce its quality. :) Here is an official British War Office image from the 1940s, definitely taken before 1951. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:King_Abdullah_of_Jordan_and_John_Glubb_Ba… David Gerard got the British govt to confirm years ago that these are regarded as PD worldwide. But not clearly PD in the U.S. because of the January 1, 1996 rule; therefore we can't upload to Commons (safely) and can't use in featured articles (safely). The above are no means isolated examples. It seems to me that when we find situations like this cropping up again and again, we have evidence of *reductio ad absurdum*, evidence that the image policies are irrational, and way too complex to expect editors to adhere to. All our content and behavioral policies have to watch out for this -- if we find a content policy is trying to force people to do things that everyone agrees are silly, we change the policy. But with the image policies, no matter the tangles we end up in, no matter that we're basically telling every country in the world that they're not allowed to order their own affairs, and no matter that there are no real legal issues in the U.S. with images of this kind anyway, no sensible change in the image policies is permitted. That's what confuses me. Is it just that no one is bothering to sort them out, or is there resistance to it somewhere? Is it Foundation-level, or what is it? Sarah