Index talk:A Basic Guide to Open Educational Resources.pdf

What do you think about this work, and the various images that have this issue? It seems to me that as long as Wikisource lacks a exemption doctrine policy, works like this one can never be completed. Thoughts? -Pete (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * tl;dr Our policy is WS:WWI and we reproduce public domain works in full, not partially. So please interpret that as you require. I have no issues with images in PD works being hosted at enWS, if they cannot be held at Commons. They are part of the work, and would have the same licensing as the work, until someone comes along to WMF with a DCMA takedown notice and as such that the WMF demonstrates that the licensing was wrong. As we are not introducing new images to a work, which wouldn't be reproducing the work, I am not seeing an issue, though I am not a legal expert on the matter, just a common soul. There is an exception to that doctrine in where governments have included copyrighted works in parliamentary processes where they have exemptions granted to themselves, which don't apply here.  If you are indicating that this work is not public domain, then it should follow the process at WS:CV. — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it makes a difference, but the work in question is CC-BY-SA and not PD. According to this discussion, "Inclusion of an image within a freely-licensed work does not automatically confer any licensing status on the included image." —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * and, thank you for the helpful links -- especially WS:CV. I did bring this up for discussion long ago at the Scriptorium, but it attracted very little interest. The images are not freely licensed, so I guess on a strict interpretation this entire work should be deleted from Wikisource. I find that disappointing, I think it's valuable to have works like this, and I think the occasional (c) image in an otherwise free work should not exclude the entire work. I have in the past advocated for an EDP here at Wikisource, which I think is the best solution, but I have not found much support for that idea. -Pete (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe a more compelling example, where a strict interpretation would mean deleting a book whose entire contents are freely licensed: Guidelines for Open Educational Resources in Higher Education There are two images there that I believe are not freely licensed: the cover image, and the Commonwealth of Learning logo. Neither adds any meaning to the work; leaving either of them out would not harm the reader's ability to learn valuable things. But I don't think we should have to delete works like this. -Pete (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If having the images separatde is an issue, then omit them and we can look to deal with them as redacted content with markers, and maybe pointers to the original images. We could adapt a version of missing image that covers the scenario. We have a history of dealing with things as they come up, and not trying to overly complicate unnecessarily. I also feel that this discussion could be moved to WS:S rather than sitting off as a side-branch if we are getting into the policy-making space. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This all sounds good. Yes, I would love to have a go at the Scriptorium again; when I brought it up before I only got, if memory serves, 2-3 responses, so I may not have framed it very well. This discussion will surely help though. I am very busy the next week or two, so I'd rather hold off a bit before starting a broader discussion. -Pete (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)