Template:SLNSW-license

This template includes a fake license. The State Library does not own copyright in these images despite their misguided assertions. They believe that owning a photo makes the library the author. No it does not. The fake license (Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-au) should be removed. Many of these images are in the public domain anyway so asserting a fake license makes it more restrictive for re-users. 2A02:C7D:3C1A:7300:34EE:76E0:1459:D036 14:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Keep That might be true of some images that are of 2D works, but there are things like File:Bowman flag, 1806.jpg which are modern photographs of items in the SLNSW collection. The library most likely owns the copyright of these, and so this template is correct. It's also useful to have an institution-specific template like this for adding catalogue links and categories etc. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 23:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Comment This template has a parameter "2d=yes/no", which toggles the assertions made about copyright. You can see a good example of a correctly templated non-2d work here: File:Macquarie collectors chest 1818 a1089004.jpg, and a correctly templated 2d work here: File:State_Library_of_New_South_Wales,_A933010u.tif. I assume this nomination is about the latter type? Please read it carefully. Firstly, the author is very clearly labelled as "Thomas Bock", so no, the library is not claimed as the primary author. When you say "They believe that owning a photo makes the library the author", in these cases the library actually made the photo/digital reproduction. In *some* jurisdictions this gives them rights, in others (including the USA) it does not. Therefore there is a note at the bottom of the template saying "In many jurisdictions, faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are not copyrightable. The Wikimedia Foundation's position is that these works are not copyrightable in the United States (see Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs). In these jurisdictions, this work is actually in the public domain and the requirements of the above license are not compulsory." This wording makes the situation clear as far as I can tell. If consensus can be established about how to improve the wording, I'm all for it. --99of9 (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

 Keep Some usages are correct, what we may need is to write a notice on its /doc page to tell us when using it is right. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Kept: even has an OTRS confirmation. --JuTa 13:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)