Talk:World Digital Library

message: While the user does not have to pay to access materials on the WDL, they are not copyright free. The Legal Notice section says the following: Content found on the WDL Web site is contributed by WDL partners. Copyright questions about partner content should be directed to that partner. When publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in a WDL partner's collections, the researcher has the obligation to determine and satisfy domestic and international copyright law or other use restrictions.
So I think a section on licensing should be included - I'll add one. – ukexpat (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How does that determine that they are not copyright free? To me it looks as though they are simply giving good advice and covering their own backs in the event something is still under international copyright. The volumes and journals look far too old to remain under any copyright law I know of. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, certainly there are different claims made about copyright, but Bridgeman v. Corel (and other legal decisions following it, and other similar one throughout the world) are pretty clear that very old items are clearly in the public domain even if they are scanned in and presented online. In fact, the claim the site uses doesn't say that everything is copyrighted by the institutions that provided access, just that copyright should be researched. A minimal amount of research shows quite uncontroversially that a good chunk of the holdings are clearly public domain based solely upon age. Much of it was created before there even existed any copyright law to protect it, and a lot of the later content is still too old to be covered by any copyright law in the world. DreamGuy (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, I was merely pointing out the terms on the wesbite and, ex abundante cautela, that not all content on the WDL may be PD or otherwise freely available for use elsewhere. I should have said "...they may not be copyright free" in my comment above. – ukexpat (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, certainly some of it wouldn't be freely usable, but if the wording suggests that most or none of it is then it went way too far to the other side, as a lot of it clearly is PD. DreamGuy (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed your OR claim. Either we mention licensing without OR or we don't mention at all. Engaging in OR because we think the World Digital Library source is confusing or misleading is not acceptable. I have tried to improve the wording to more accurately reflect what the legal section actually says  without engaging in OR. You are welcome to improve it further but please don't engage in further OR Nil Einne (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, four mentions of the abbreviation OR in one paragraph without any demonstrated understanding of what it actually means. It's certainly not original research to note that very old material isn't under any copyright. That's completely unoriginal and well known. Unfortunately the version you left is still giving the misleading and wholly unnecessary legal disclaimers that suggest legal ownership that, for the most part doesn't exist. If you claim that "we don't mention at all" is an acceptable option, then the version all of us should agree to is to remove the whole thing completely. DreamGuy (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I give up. I thought it was important to have in the article something that deals with licensing/copyright lest anyone think that they can freely use the content without doing their homework. I guess I was wrong. – ukexpat (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Bridgeman is valid only in the US. In other jurisdictions photographs of paintings etcetera can be copyrighted as derivative works. I am fine with the decision of the foundation to disregard such claims. Uploaders and users in such countries should be aware of the copyright claims that museums may have. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Free of charge"

message: E.g. the Nuremberg chronicle? --Historiograf (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that all items from the Wellcome Library are absent from the WDL. I have contacted them regarding this matter. I will provide further information when they respond.   — C M B J   02:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Where can I find the treasures mentioned in the PR articles????

message: is member of WDL, but if you really want something, you have to pay for! Even for material, older than 100 years. Thats whats really happens with ONB. Even the Private public partnership with google has restrictions, because the usage is just for non commercial purposes.
On the other side, the Library of the Austrian Federal Monuments office has given us the complete access for free. [Including a office with no charge]. --Hubertl (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austrian national library 

message: Right now many of the sources are primary sources and/or coverage of the launch. The article needs secondary sources, particularly those that show critical evaluation to meet the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  sourcing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on World Digital Library. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422171123/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090421-200521/RP-book-featured-in-World-Digital-Library to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090421-200521/RP-book-featured-in-World-Digital-Library
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://project.wdl.org/project/english/partners/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There are nowadays around 200 WDL partner organizations. Current article lists minority of them, many national libraries are missing (including e.g. Australia, Canada - with nat. archives - Finland, Iran, Kenya, South Africa, Ukraine etc; Germany & Italy have both the national (state) libraries as WDL partners). Update is needed! ref: https://www.wdl.org/en/partners/
--Paju~enwiki (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Partners outdated