Template talk:PD-self

message: Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:
 vi:Tiêu bản:PD-self
Thanks.
 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done RN 08:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki link to vi: 

message: 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)
replies: text: Edit done. RN 08:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anyone?

message: 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)
thread_title:  free license? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Can a work be released by the author? 

message: See Template:PD-self/Proposed.  To allow sorting to work in the image category.  Peter O. (Talk) 14:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --   Netsnipe  ►  17:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed edit 

message: Please consider adding a link to :fr:Modèle:Domaine public perso. Thank you. 88.160.247.46 19:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Rich Farmbrough, 12:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iwiki 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unless such conditions are required -- then what? 

message: --Random832 01:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  + 

message: :az:Şablon:İM-öz--Uannis 20:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  İnterwiki 

message: 
Please place  on the template page - nominating this for deprecation/deletion in favor of . Thanks! Videmus Omnia  Talk  00:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI - nom is here. Videmus Omnia  Talk  01:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editprotected request 

message: Please add . Thanks. Rocket000 21:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected template 

message: 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:
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  or  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 public domain.  This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible,
to
 I, the copyright holder of this work, 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)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea. -- Tkgd2007 (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "the copyright holder of this work"

message: 




Kelly hi! 01:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I see that CapitalR has done the update. --David Göthberg (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imbox standardization 

message: 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)
replies: text: Oh, never mind. There is a red link plague sweeping Wikipedia right now. It's fine. Darkshark0159 (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Red link

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A pretty bold assertion to make without justification. 

message: Can we add the  template to this so that all images with this license are flagged for migration to commons? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to add  in the following wording as it allows an opt-out:

But in general , support the idea for auto-tagging for Commons move :)
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added but then rolled back :-( Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't agree. Of files tagged with  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)
replies: text: Request disabled. Please continue to discuss. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Copy to commons 

message: Could someone add  to this template so the images will up in :Category:Self-published work ? See  for an example. multichill (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ; please amend the documentation to reflect the change. billinghurst sDrewth 09:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Self-published work]] 

message: Wouldn't changing "In case ..." to "Unless ..." be a little more clearer? -- œ™ 07:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it would reverse the meaning. I have changed it to "if". Rich Farmbrough, 12:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. Well done on spotting this! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving free media tag 

message: 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 , but I decided to document the actual behavior for now.
 is a double negative, so it might not be ideal to support anyway. Superm401 - Talk 06:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed "no Commons" docs 

message: Why does the panel generated by  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Isn't the CC zero waiver logo needed?