Template talk:PD-self

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]

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]