Template talk:PD-self

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 October 3. The result of the discussion was "Keep".

Necessary?

It seems to me that this template is subsumed by Template:PD-user, which is more informative. Are there any good arguments for a continued need for the present template? --MarkSweep 00:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to be swayed by arguments for combining them; as you say, the distinction is not great. The other can be used by anyone tagging submissions, even if they were not the creator themselves, so long as they have evidence that the creator did want the submission to be public domain. This one can only be used by Users who are also creators, who are tagging their own images. I do think there may be some small advantage in separating the two, as far as breaking down into categories the workload of those who may be checking the validity of image copyright tags in the future.

Not committed to preserving this one, which was created to fill a hole in existing PD tags -- I don't see any problem with using PD-user (which was created a month later) instead -- just explaining my reasoning and adding my two cents. Catherine\^talk 03:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interwiki link to vi:

Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:

<noinclude>[[vi:Tiêu bản:PD-self]]</noinclude>

Thanks.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done RN 08:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone?

The word anyone should be replaced with any entity, or something similar. Anyone implies a person, and doesn't include a corporation, government, organization, or other entity. Also, this should at least be semi protected, rather than fully protected. -Mulder416 21:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit done. RN 08:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

free license?

So, since this licensing effectively provides both the source and licensing requirements for images, it can be put onto any image and without proof to the contrary — it would stand? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can a work be released by the author?

Can someone please explain how this works? As I understood copyright law in the U.S., post-Berne (and many other countries, I am lead to understand), there is no statutory mechanism to waive copyright. The public domain consists of those works that have had their copyrights removed (e.g. by expiring) or were not eligible for copyright in the first place (e.g. works of the U.S. Government). This template therefore has no legal meaning, and renders the image copyrighted and unlicensed. Please, if you are a copyright lawyer, feel free to correct me on this.

For context, here is a quote from Public domain:

Although the only part of the act that does mention "public domain" does not speak to whether authors have the right to dedicate their work to the public domain, the remainder of the committee report does not say that they intended copyright should be an indestructible form of property. Rather the language speaks to getting rid of formalities in order to comply with Berne (non-compliance had become a severe impediment in trade negotiations) and making registration and marking optional, but encouraged. A fair reading is that the Berne Act did not intend to take away author's right to dedicate works to the public domain, which they had (by default) under the 1976 Act.

Hopefully that clarifies the problem. -Harmil 21:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a person copyright a file, only to release it to the public domain? Shouldn't it just be "creator of the file" releases to the public domain? I'm not to good with this topic, so could someone clarify that for me? --haha169 (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All intellectual property (except in special circumstances like the works of the US federal government) is copyrighted by default. If you draw a picture, take a photograph or write a piece of music, etc, that work is already copyrighted the moment it is created, and be default, the creator of the work is the copyright owner. So you can't add copyright to anything, only release the copyright. --Mosmof (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edit

See Template:PD-self/Proposed. To allow sorting to work in the image category. Peter O. (Talk) 14:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Netsnipe ► 17:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iwiki

Please consider adding a link to fr:Modèle:Domaine public perso. Thank you. 88.160.247.46 19:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add Ru-Wiki

[[ru:Шаблон:PD-self]]

--Alex Spade 19:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and [[is:Snið:PD-Eigin]] thanks --Steinninn 06:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rich Farmbrough, 12:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Unless such conditions are required -- then what?

First off, in what jurisdictions are conditions required? And what if they are? If we are going to go to the trouble of putting in this awkward sub-sub-condition, then we ought to round it out with whatever (hopefully inoperative) conditions are necessary. ("Not valid in the year 2000"? I don't know.) 75.18.200.11 06:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems for Author

Will author have problems if his work cause damage?

Could one bring author to court if his grandpa died of heart-attack looking at this image?

+

{{editprotected}} {{free media}} --Random832 01:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to look elsewhere to figure out what you were asking for, but it's done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

İnterwiki

az:Şablon:İM-öz--Uannis 20:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editprotected request

{{editprotected}} Please place {{tfd|PD-self}} on the template page - nominating this for deprecation/deletion in favor of {{PD-user}}. Thanks! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - nom is here. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --- RockMFR 03:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected template

{{editprotect}} Please add {{pp-template|small=yes}}. Thanks. Rocket000 21:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the copyright holder of this work"

Would some consunsus (?spelling?) be able to determine if the should have the term "the copyright holder of this work" with the actual copyright holder.

For example:

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.

If this is not legally possible:

I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

OR

I, SpecialWindler (the copyright holder of this work), hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.
In case this is not legally possible,
I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

Making the {{{1|}}} or {{{author|}}} parameter or similar to correspond with this wouldn't be hard.

Change the syntax from

''I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the '''[[w:public domain|public domain]]'''.  This applies worldwide.''<br/> In case this is not legally possible,<br/>

to

I, {{#if:{{{1|}}}|[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] (}}the copyright holder of this work{{#if:{{{1|}}}|)}}, hereby release it into the public domain.  This applies worldwide.

In case this is not legally possible,

Any comments/objections. The Windler talk 22:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea. -- Tkgd2007 (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would only be an option, and wouldn't affect any use of the templates already. The Windler talk 06:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a long time since this discussion, but I'll park this anyway in case it's revived.
My experience in this subject leads me to observe:

Since a declaration is involved, the legal name of the person – not their Wikipedia name – would need to be used if the declaration was to be valid. Better to leave it with the present wording, which skirts around such a question.
A better wording for "I, the copyright holder of this work" (at least in British and Australian law, and given the internationally collaborative nature of copyright practices probably other jurisdictions) is "I, the owner of copyright in this work".

Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 04:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imbox standardization

{{imbox
| type      = license
| image     = [[Image:PD-icon.svg|52px|Public domain]]
| text      = 
''I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the '''[[w:public domain|public domain]]'''.  This applies worldwide.''<br/>
In case this is not legally possible,<br/>
''I grant any entity the right to use this work '''for any purpose''', without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.''
}}{{image other 
| [[Category:User-created public domain images|{{PAGENAME}}]] 
}}{{free media}}<noinclude>

{{pp-template|small=yes}}
{{Documentation}}
<!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! -->
</noinclude>

Kelly ^hi! 01:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I see that CapitalR has done the update. --David Göthberg (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red link

The "public domain" link points towards W:public domain when it should point to WP:public domain. This needs to be fixed. Darkshark0159 (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind. There is a red link plague sweeping Wikipedia right now. It's fine. Darkshark0159 (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty bold assertion to make without justification.

This tag ought to include a mandatory field in which the submitter describes how the image was made, or if they were not the author themselves, who they purchased the copyright from.

It's all to easy -- and all too common -- for lackadaisical and careless submitters to upload a photo they don't at all own the rights to, even if they ignorantly think they do (they drew a box on a copyrighted image and call it "their work" for example), and slap {{PD-Self}} on it.

Abuse of PD-self (as well as other PD and copylefty tags too, to be sure) is a liability hole for the project. Requiring PD-Self tag users to state the origin of the image would have multiple results: 1. they don't use PD-Self because they can't answer the question, 2. they include an indication of origin that betrays the image's real ownership, leading to correction or IFD, or 3. they don't provide one, leading to IFD unless (a good) one is added, as is already the routine for FU without a FUR.

Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a liability hole for the project because there are broad exemptions for projects like the wikipedia which have user contributed content (like youtube- same thing)- once they get notified by the copyright holder they can take it down without penalty. The hole is for the uploader; they can be sued.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy to commons

Can we add the {{copy to commons}} template to this so that all images with this license are flagged for migration to commons? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better to add {{Commons encouraged}} in the following wording as it allows an opt-out:

<includeonly>{{CommonsEncouraged|works under this type of licence|commons={{{commons|}}}}}</includeonly>

But in general , support the idea for auto-tagging for Commons move :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was added but then rolled back :-( Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} There should definitely be a {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template on each instance of PD-self. Can an admin add this (again)? Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Of files tagged with {{copy to commons}} you expect them to be checked. Some of the files don't have suitable copyright information and shouldn't be moved to Commons. multichill (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request disabled. Please continue to discuss. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Multichill. There should only be a "MTC" on files that have been checked. If a link is wanted we could perhaps add a link "Click here [auto link to CommonsHelper] to copy file to Commons IF the file is ready to move.". But not a normal "MTC". --MGA73 (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Self-published work

Could someone add [[Category:Self-published work|{{PAGENAME}}]] to this template so the images will up in Category:Self-published work ? See {{GFDL-self}} for an example. multichill (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done; please amend the documentation to reflect the change. billinghurst sDrewth 09:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

Wouldn't changing "In case ..." to "Unless ..." be a little more clearer? -- œ ^™ 07:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it would reverse the meaning. I have changed it to "if". Rich Farmbrough, 12:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Moving free media tag

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the sandbox version,I've made a minor change so that 'free' images of a Non-free subjects (and thus not suitable for Commons) are not categorised with entirely free media.

It would be appreciated if this minor change, was rolled into the main template at some point. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Well done on spotting this! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed "no Commons" docs

I fixed the "no Commons" docs. no Commons=no is actually treated the same as no Commons=yes or no Commons=anything. To get the false behavior, it needs to be empty or omitted. The behavior could be changed to match the old docs (e.g. using {{yesno}}, but I decided to document the actual behavior for now.

{{PD-self|no Commons=no}} is a double negative, so it might not be ideal to support anyway. Superm401 - Talk 06:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the CC zero waiver logo needed?

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Why does the panel generated by {{PD-self}} show a Creative Commons public domain mark instead of a CC zero waiver/licence logo (CC0)? CC0 is described here as "a tool for relinquishing copyright and releasing material into the public domain". The Public Domain Mark is described as "a tool for labeling works already in the public domain". Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 07:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Creative Commons public domain mark in this template needs to be changed to a CC zero waiver/licence logo (CC0). The definition of CC0 is "a tool for relinquishing copyright and releasing material into the public domain". The Public Domain Mark isn't appropriate because it's a tool for labelling works already in the public domain. A number of other templates have the same incorrect logo too. SCHolar44 (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: File:PD-icon.svg is not File:Cc-public domain mark white.svg. PD is not CC0, so it shouldn't use the CC0 symbol. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Commons

In Special:Diff/867363798 User:JJMC89 removed the "no Commons". I can see why. But I think that the idea with "no Commons" was that free files suitable for Commons should be in a dated sub category of Category:User-created public domain files and files not suitable for Commons should be in Category:User-created public domain files (no Commons). So I would like to suggest a change so if the file has a dw it goes to Category:User-created public domain files (no Commons). --MGA73 (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ping User:Brainulator9 as possibly interessted in this. --MGA73 (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two notes:

For some odd reason, the "no Commons" subcategorization only did anything with {{PD-user}}; {{PD-self}} did not.
Some files might, for whatever reason, be tagged as {{KeepLocal}}. That might have to be accounted for.

Ultimately, though, I'd like to have the monthly no-Commons categories excised in favor of putting everything in the main folder so we don't have all these dated maintenance categories lying around that can't be fixed for decades. The ones that still need to be checked for Commons compatibility or moved can remain dated, I guess, at least until we move everything over to Commons. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brainulator9 I agree that there is no need for dated categories for files that can't be moved to Commons. Files with a {{KeepLocal}} can be moved to Commons if the only reason is that uploader do not like Commons. So I think that dw means the file should always be in "no Commons" but a keep local means the file should be in the main category untill it is moved to Commons and then the file should be in "no Commons" (perhaps a bit odd but no need to invent an extra category for the keep local files). --MGA73 (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should be restored, since images marked keep local are ineligible for CSD and/or may not be suitable for Commons (e.g., photographs of building in countries without freedom of panorama). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73, Brainulator9, and Magog the Ogre: I just arrived at this discussion while looking at old maintenance categories, but I have the same concern. There is no point to putting the files which cannot or should not (e.g. personal files) be copied to Commons in any maintenance category; no changes to them are necessary.

Would anyone oppose me reinstating the code to categorize files with |no Commons=yes in a separate "no Commons" category, rather than the main maintenance category? Elli (talk | contribs) 23:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli: I support that. But I do not think that we need to sort the "no commons" in dates. It can just be one (big?) category. --MGA73 (talk) 09:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree there. I'll wait a few days for more comments and then implement the change, since it seems like there's no objection to it. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with @MGA73 here: drop the dated maintenance versions and move them over. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]