Presuming that the image doesnt have author details then http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-UK-unknown could be applied so images prior to 1/jan/1939 are pd, if the author is known http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-UK-known applies and its the same date, only engraving are different
2009/11/5 Geoffrey Plourde <[email protected]> > You need to take it up with the flickr admins. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Caroline Ford <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Wed, November 4, 2009 3:30:08 PM > *Subject:* [Commons-l] "no copyright restrictions" - LSE Library & flickr > > Hi > > With some fanfare the LSE library have added some images from their > collection to flickr commons. As per the rules of flickr commons these are > listed as "no copyright restrictions". If you click on the LSE's > interpretation of "no copyright restrictions" they link to a very non-free, > personal, non-commercial licence. > > Flickr's understanding of no copyright restrictions: > http://www.flickr.com/commons/usage/ > > BY ASSERTING "NO KNOWN COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS," PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS > ARE SHARING THE BENEFIT OF THEIR RESEARCH WITHOUT PROVIDING AN EXPRESSED OR > IMPLIED WARRANTY TO OTHERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO USE OR REPRODUCE THE > PHOTOGRAPH. IF YOU MAKE USE OF A PHOTO FROM THE COMMONS, YOU ARE REMINDED TO > CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF APPLICABLE LAW BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH A > PARTICULAR NEW USE. > > The LSE Library's understanding of no copyright restrictions: > http://www2.lse.ac.uk/library/archive/flickr_rights_statement.aspx > > "The images published on our Flickr Commons photostream are all marked as > having ‘no known copyright restrictions’ attached to them. This means that > we are unaware of any current copyright restrictions for displaying this > selection of photographs from our collection within the Flickr website, > either because LSE owns the copyright, or the term of copyright has expired, > or because no evidence has been found that copyright restrictions apply. > > The images on our photostream are meant to be used for personal, > educational or research purposes. To obtain high quality digital copies, or > to find out more about copyright terms for the reproduction of specific > works in our collection, please contact the Library's Archives and Rare > Books Division. Please note that it is our policy to charge licensing fees > for commercial use. " > > I've complained here: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/lselibrary/3274389894/ > > The LSE replied: > Just to clarify on the copyright point. Copyright in ‘No known copyright > restrictions’ refers to the rights of the photographer. In the case of all > the images we have put on Flickr as far as we have been able to establish > copyright has either expired or belongs to LSE. Licensing is different, this > applies to permission to reproduce images. We have placed these images under > a ‘non-commercial licence’ which means that they can be used freely for > personal and academic use. Charges only apply if someone wanted to use the > images for commercial publications when we would have to supply higher > resolution images. This is standard practice for commercial publications. > Flickr Commons has a code of practice dictating what can be displayed on the > site and LSE adheres to this in all respects. > > Can they really claim copyright and licensing are different like this? > > I know library thing had people upload images from this collection > believing "no copyright restrictions" meant PD. I expect some will end up on > Commons too. > > Caroline > > > _______________________________________________ > Commons-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > > -- GN. http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
