Open main menu

Wikidata:Property proposal/copyright clarification

< Wikidata:Property proposal

copyright clarificationEdit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

   Not done
DescriptionQualifier of copyright status (P6216) to provide extra details explaining .
Data typeMultilingual text (not available yet)
DomainQualifier of copyright status (P6216)
Allowed valuesAny descriptive text
Example 1Girl washing clothes (Q60581387) → "Based on Pieter de Hooch's date of death in 1684" (especially for works with multiple authors it would be useful to mention which one died last and when, so it is easier for other's to verify your claim)
Example 2Victory Boogie-Woogie (Q1248830) → "Mondrian/Holtzman Trust claims the work is still under copyright" (That work's copyright is disputed, which is modeled, however It would be nice to explain)
Example 3Statue of Liberty (Q9202) → "Based on Gustave Eiffel's date of death in 1923" (for European copyright) and "Publication date is assumed to be 1886, when statute was placed in the public location without restriction on making copies" (for US copyright)
Format and edit filter validationsyntax clarification (P2916), constraint clarification (P6607), determination method (P459)
Planned usereplace uses of comment (DEPRECATED) (P2315) as qualifier of copyright status (P6216)


MotivationEdit

Proposed as a result of the discussion to un-deprecate comment (DEPRECATED) (P2315) property. copyright status (P6216) statements can get quite complicated and current format might not be able to capture full reasoning behind some of the decisions. Especially with determination method (P459) qualifier, there is a fine balance between too specific items and too broad ones. This property would allow us to keep on using generic reasons in determination method (P459) qualifier while allowing us to be more precise with this free-text clarification. My first choice was to resurrect comment (DEPRECATED) (P2315) property, but I was convinced that a new narrow scope property might be better. --Jarekt (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support David (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. This is not structured data. Plain text explanations are not within Wikidata's scope. --Yair rand (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Yair rand, Yes this is not structured data and it is not meant to be. It is meant to help other users that come after us to understand why we picked some combination of parameters. For example we claim that Statue of Liberty (Q9202) is in Public domain in the US because it was published before more than 95 years ago. That is as far as structured data will take us. However for future users that might be puzzled by that statement it could be useful to explain that "publication date is assumed to be 1886, when statute was placed in the public location without restriction on making copies". A free text explanation would be preferable to adding publication date (P577) to the item. User:Izno proposed (here) to create new property as opposed to using comment (DEPRECATED) (P2315) which is what we do now. Is there a better place to add such information? --Jarekt (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jarekt, Vulphere, Pigsonthewing, Yair rand, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Robin van der Vliet:   Not done, lacks a lot of support. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)