Yes, I am working on this now, and will put up a proposal to amend policy on Commons in
the next day or two. It is of particular relevance to UK Crown Copyright works.
Michael
On 30 Dec 2013, at 14:56, Fæ <faewik+commons(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The URAA is rather more than theoretical. There is
more milage in
developing a defensive approach for orphan works. Again I think an
inclusive discussion on Commons is more useful if anyone intends to
progress this.
Fae
On 30 Dec 2013 14:04, "Newyorkbrad" <newyorkbrad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I have no role or participation on Commons, but from my work on English WP
> I'm aware of the very real copyright status of "free as a practical matter
> although someone could theoretically make a disputed technical argument
> otherwise."
>
> One solution, where there is a good-faith argument the image is free and no
> rights-holder claiming otherwise, would be a disclaimer. Perhaps something
> along the lines of "It is believed this image is in the public domain [or,
> the status of this image depends on resolution of an open legal issue, or
> whatever] and therefore eligible for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons and for
> re-use. However, it is possible that the free status of this image could be
> disputed because [brief explanation of reason]. Potential re-users should
> therefore proceed cautiously."
>
> I hasten to add that this would be appropriate only where the impediment to
> freedom is seen as mostly theoretical, not to screw over legitimate claims
> by rightsholders or by people with privacy interests implicated by the
> image.
>
> Newyorkbrad