Category talk:Winslow Homer wood engravings

The images in this category should be (re-)tagged with {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}}. There are old enough for that and there is no need for a CC license. --ALE! ¿…? 06:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This was part of a number of batch uploads from the Boston Public Library flickrstream. They have reviewed the images and chosen to release them on a CC-BY license. I have checked the validity of this license for Commons and that they have made no fundamental error in such a classification. As far as I am aware, Commons has no policy that forces a blanket change of license from CC to PD variants and the CC license is sufficient.

If we do have a consensus to force such a change and over-ride the judgement of the donating institution or their curators, I would like to take a good look at it and review the implications. Such blanket changes may well cause problems in the future with Commons appearing confrontational over the licenses that institutions have chosen to apply, particularly for batch uploads where the license (and form of attribution) has been specifically negotiated (as I am in the middle of doing with the UK's National Archives). Cheers Fæ (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is, that the images are in the PD. Whatever license the Boston Lib. or others choose to donate the images, you can not force people who (re-)use the images to respect this CC-by licenses. The images are PD so an attribution is not required. End of story.

I also do not understand why we negotiate such licenses with them when the legal situation is cristal clear. --ALE! ¿…? 12:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I accept your point but there is a distinction between being right, and shooting the Golden Goose. There are many reasons for context to be fully preserved or for the donating partner to have some reasonable level of recognition that they have provided authoritative descriptions and put in the hard work of scanning and releasing the images. This can happen in several different ways, and yes, I would prefer something like a CC0 or PD to apply up front, in the meantime demonstrating the value of having their material on Commons without having a lengthy preliminary argument about licenses or being confrontational by changing them en-mass as soon as they are uploaded (which I still do not believe is supported by existing policy). Feel free to disagree, though this might be a topic to usefully take up at the Village pump so that we can ensure policy is clear, particularly in regard to advice we ought to be giving our GLAM partners. If the consensus is that we prefer not to have donations without the PD license, then I will pass this advice on, and turn down proposals from institutions who wish to pursue a CC license or reject funding for WM-UK for projects that are not clear on this point. Cheers Fæ (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

They can donate the images under any free license they want but this does not prevent people from changing the license to the "correct" license. The point is not to turn down such donations or to force a mass change of license, the point is to make clear to the donating institution that the "correct" license is PD. It would be the same if the were putting their scans on their website with a CC-by license and us copying ALL their images to Commons with a PD license. Where is the difference? There is really none. So, it should be made made clear to the donating institutions upfront that their choice of CC-by has no real legal power. --ALE! ¿…? 11:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have copied this discussion to the village pump. --ALE! ¿…? 11:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)